Problem
Firstly, I want to know whether you believe the process to find an error at trial after objection to be too restrictive or not restrictive enough, why or why not. Also include an analysis of the different types of error (such as reversible error, harmful error that was not preserved, harmless error error and fundamental error), and the rules regarding error. Should the reviewing court be able to find error and reverse cases even if the harm is not substantial? What if the harm is not fundamental, but the attorney did not contemporaneously object?