Formal exceptions to rulings or orders of the court are unnecessary; but for all purposes for which an exception has heretofore been necessary it is sufficient that a party, at the time the ruling or order of the court is made or sought, makes known to the court the action which he desires the court to take or his objection to the action of the court and his grounds therefor; and, if a party has no opportunity to object to a ruling or order at the time it is made, the absence of an objection does not thereafter prejudice him.

Annotation Law reviews. For article, “Colorado Criminal Procedure-Does It Meet Minimum Standards?”, see 28 Dicta 14 (1951). For article, “Trials: Rules 38-53 “, see 23 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 571 (1951). For article, “One Year Review of Civil Procedure”, see 34 Dicta 69 (1957). For article “There is Still a Chance: Raising Unpreserved Arguments on Appeal”, see 42 Colo. Law. 29 (June 2013). This rule is mandatory. Anderson v. Anderson, 124 Colo. 74, 234 P.2d 903 (1951). An appellate court may refuse to consider a specification where this rule has not been complied with. Anderson v. Anderson, 124 Colo. 74, 234 P.2d 903 (1951); Allen v. Crouch, 134 Colo. 603, 307 P.2d 815 (1957). Where a party is afforded no opportunity by the court to register an objection, the absence of an objection in the record does not prejudice the party upon review. Brakhahn v. Hildebrand, 134 Colo. 197, 301 P.2d 347 (1956). A party who was afforded no opportunity to object to an instruction given orally outside his presence is not precluded from raising the point on review. Reimer v. Walker, 170 Colo. 149, 459 P.2d 274 (1969). Failure of prosecution to object to trial court’s action, which objection affords trial court opportunity to correct an alleged error, precludes review of merits on appeal. People v. Schweer, 775 P.2d 582 (Colo. 1989). Applied in Menne v. Menne, 194 Colo. 304, 572 P.2d 472 (1977).