With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the tape to be introduced or incorporated. We also observe that in objecting to the trial court's findings, Bowker did not cite to the tape. Nor does Bowker cite to the tape on appeal for support of her argument pertaining to the Miranda issue. Thus, while the dissent bases its argument chiefly on this tape, throughout the trial and appellate proceedings, it played no part in the issue of whether Bowker was free to leave or whether she was restrained at the time she made the statements that she sought to suppress. Since Bowker failed to introduce the tape at the hearing on the motion to suppress statements or have it incorporated into those proceedings, any consideration of the content of the tape is waived on appeal. See Berdahl v. Gillis, 81 S.D. 436, 136 N.W.2d 633, 635 (S.D.1965) (<HOLDING>). As an appellate court, we are confined to the

A: holding that a letter utilized by the appellant in his argument would not be considered on appeal because it was not properly before the trial court
B: holding that an argument not raised before the bankruptcy court will not be considered for the first time on appeal
C: holding that errors not raised before the trial court will not generally be considered on appeal
D: holding that a claim not raised before the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal
A.