With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". issue. SCRA 1986, 12-216 (Cum.Supp.1995); see also State v. Casteneda, 97 N.M. 670, 674, 642 P.2d 1129, 1133 (Ct.App.1982). The trial court asked during closing argument whether the sole issue was the exigent circumstances question, and neither the prosecutor nor defense counsel corrected the court’s impression. After the trial court orally ruled in favor of the State on the exigent circumstances question, defense counsel asked to clarify several points. None of the matters sought to be clarified involved the pretext issue sought to be argued here, and counsel did not request that the trial court rule on this issue. Under these circumstances we hold that Defendants failed to preserve this issue for appellate review. Cf. State v. Montoya, 116 N.M. 297, 304, 861 P.2d 978, 985 (Ct.App.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 116 N.M. 364, 862 P.2d 1228

A: holding that a calculation of the amount of loss is a factual finding
B: holding claim of pretextual purpose necessitates finding on factual issue
C: holding that where there is insufficient evidence to permit a reasonable factual finding of originality the question may be disposed of as an issue of law at summary judgment
D: holding we may consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal when the issue presented is purely one of law and  depends on the factual record developed below
B.