With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". omnibus hearing, however, the state agreed that Aubid did not obtain the gun with intent to use it on the victim, and thus the robbery evidence does not establish motive. The state argues on appeal that the robbery evidence shows: (1) a general motive to shoot someone in the time period in which the kidnap-murder of the victim occurred; and (2) the “manner in which [he] obtained the contraband and intoxicants upon which he purports to base his defense of intoxication.” Because these issues were raised for the first time on appeal and fail to provide Aubid with a motive for participating in any crime against Paul Antonich, we conclude the trial court correctly determined the state was required to give notice to introduce the evidence. See State v. Grube, 531 N.W.2d 484, 489 (Minn.1995) (<HOLDING>). We need not address whether the state has

A: holding issues not raised before the district court are not preserved for appeal
B: holding that issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised on appeal
C: holding that issues not raised before the district court cannot be asserted for the first time on appeal
D: holding that issues not raised before a district court are waived on appeal
B.