question stems from the statute’s use of the term “wrongful.” Explaining this term, the trial court instructed the jury that “[wjrongful, as in wrongful use of fear, means that the Defendant had no lawful right to the property that he sought to obtain.” Trial Transcript, Vol. V, at 119. The Court’s definition of “wrongful” was purely objective. By making no reference to the defendant’s state of mind, the instruction suggested that Sturm’s mens rea was irrelevant. This omission was exacerbated by the court’s subsequent instruction on specific intent. The trial court stated that “[t]he government is not required to provide, however, evidence that the Defendant knew those intentional acts were themselves illegal. In this case, ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Id. at 125. st Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>). The purpose of this requirement is to bring
holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal holding that the point on appeal and the objection in the trial court must be the same in order for it to be preserved for appeal holding an issue not preserved when one ground is raised to the trial court and another ground is raised on appeal holding that objection must reasonably be expected to alert the trial court to the ground subsequently raised on appeal holding to preserve an issue for appellate review the issue must have been raised to and ruled upon by trial court and a party may not argue one ground for objection at trial and another ground on appeal