Wilson v. Harelson

holding objection and a posttrial motion are generally necessary to preserve an issue for appeal | holding objection and a posttrial motion are necessary to preserve an issue for appeal | holding objection and a posttrial motion are necessary to preserve an issue for appeal | holding objec-tion and a posttrial motion are necessary to preserve an issue for appeal | salesman did not personally seek out customers but used a company brochure and "presented the basic facts necessary to effectuate a sale"; solicitation under section 12(2) found to exist | salesman did not personally seek out customers but used a company brochure and “presented the basic facts necessary to effectuate a sale”; solicitation under section 12(2) found to exist | jury might understand that written list including nonstatutory mitigating factors is exhaustive and, consequently, fail to consider other unenumerated nonstatutory mitigants | a party waives an issue for review where it fails to object at trial