lack defense in Indiana

2013Id.; see also Timberlake v. State, 690 N.E.2d 243, 254 (Ind. 1997) (observing “[d]uring argument, the prosecutor may argue and comment upon the evidence presented at trial....

2012Id.; see also Timberlake v. State, 690 N.E.2d 243, 254 (Ind. 1997) (observing “[d]uring argument, the prosecutor may argue and comment upon the evidence presented at trial. . . .

2019In other words, the State may “comment on the lack of defense evidence . . . so long as the State focuses on the absence of any evidence to contradict the State’s evidence and not on the accused’s failure to testify.” Dumas v. State, 803 N.E.2d 1113, 1118 (Ind. 2004).

2017See also Dumas v. State, 803 N.E.2d 1113, 1118 (Ind. 2004) (citing Brown v. State, 746 N.E.2d 63, 68 (Ind. 2001) (noting that “comment on the lack of defense evidence is proper so Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1608-CR-1928 | February 28, 2017 Page 8 of 10 long as the State focuses on the absence of any evidence to contradict the State’s evidence . . . .”). [23] To prove that the pills found in Abbotts home were amphetamine and alprazolam, the State relied on the forensic scientist’s visual identification of the pills.

2026It is error for a trial court to not hold a hearing on Trial Rule 37(A)(4) expenses, but such error may be harmless if Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CT-1827 | March 27, 2026 Page 28 of 33 the responding party cannot show that “the lack of a hearing affected the sanction amount.” Sawyer, 93 N.E.3d at 758 . [47] For example, in Care Group Heart Hospital, LLC v. Sawyer, the trial court awarded the plaintiff more than $27,000 in expenses as a sanction for defendant’s discovery abuses. 93 N.E.3d at 757 .

2026It is error for a trial court to not hold a hearing on Trial Rule 37(A)(4) expenses, but such error may be harmless if Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CT-1827 | March 27, 2026 Page 28 of 33 the responding party cannot show that “the lack of a hearing affected the sanction amount.” Sawyer, 93 N.E.3d at 758 . [47] For example, in Care Group Heart Hospital, LLC v. Sawyer, the trial court awarded the plaintiff more than $27,000 in expenses as a sanction for defendant’s discovery abuses. 93 N.E.3d at 757 .

2020Davidson v. State, 580 N.E.2d 238, 244 (Ind. 1991).

1993His failure to object at trial results in waiver of the alleged error on appeal." Davidson v. State (1991), Ind. 580 N.E.2d 238, 244 .

2017See also Dumas v. State, 803 N.E.2d 1113, 1118 (Ind. 2004) (citing Brown v. State, 746 N.E.2d 63, 68 (Ind. 2001) (noting that “comment on the lack of defense evidence is proper so Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A03-1608-CR-1928 | February 28, 2017 Page 8 of 10 long as the State focuses on the absence of any evidence to contradict the State’s evidence . . . .”). [23] To prove that the pills found in Abbotts home were amphetamine and alprazolam, the State relied on the forensic scientist’s visual identification of the pills.

2017See Parish, 989 N.E.2d 831 (waiver of right to counsel was invalid considering the facts and circumstances, including a failure by the court to inquire into defendant’s decision to proceed pro se).

2016See In re Paternity of M.F., 956 N.E.2d at 1164-1165 (holding that the court’s order did not indicate the manner in which the mother could purge herself of the contempt and that the court abused its discretion in finding her in contempt); Henderson, 919 N.E.2d at 1210-1212 (reversing finding of contempt and noting that the court’s order did not indicate how the appellant could purge himself of the contempt); In re Paternity of M.P.M.W., 908 N.E.2d at 1210 (noting that, unlike a contempt sanction conditioned on the payment of money or the accomplishment of a single task, the contempt sentence c

2016See In re Paternity of M.F., 956 N.E.2d at 1164-1165 (holding that the court’s order did not indicate the manner in which the mother could purge herself of the contempt and that the court abused its discretion in finding her in contempt); Henderson, 919 N.E.2d at 1210-1212 (reversing finding of contempt and noting that the court’s order did not indicate how the appellant could purge himself of the contempt); In re Paternity of M.P.M.W., 908 N.E.2d at 1210 (noting that, unlike a contempt sanction conditioned on the payment of money or the accomplishment of a single task, the contempt sentence c

2016See Henderson, 919 N.E.2d at 1212 n.3 (noting one problem with the court’s contempt order was that it did not indicate the manner in which the husband could purge himself of the contempt). [18] Based upon the lack of a rule to show cause from the court in accordance with Ind. Code § 34-47-3-5 as well as the lack of an opportunity in the December 2014 order for Father to purge himself of any finding of contempt, we reverse Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 29A04-1505-DR-265| February 16, 2016 Page 13 of 14 the trial court’s order finding Father in contempt.

2016See In re Paternity of M.F., 956 N.E.2d at 1164-1165 (holding that the court’s order did not indicate the manner in which the mother could purge herself of the contempt and that the court abused its discretion in finding her in contempt); Henderson, 919 N.E.2d at 1210-1212 (reversing finding of contempt and noting that the court’s order did not indicate how the appellant could purge himself of the contempt); In re Paternity of M.P.M.W., 908 N.E.2d at 1210 (noting that, unlike a contempt sanction conditioned on the payment of money or the accomplishment of a single task, the contempt sentence c

2016See Curtis v. State, 948 N.E.2d 1143, 1148 (Ind.2011) (“[Pjarties may not raise an issue, such ,as *1180 fundamental error, for the first time in a reply brief.”).

2016“The giving of jury instructions is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we review the trial court’s refusal to give a tendered instruction for an abuse of that discretion.” Howard v. State, 755 N.E.2d 242, 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “[A] defendant in a criminal case is entitled to have the jury instructed on any theory of defense that has some foundation in the evidence.

2014Williams v. State, 489 N.E.2d 594, 601 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986).

2014See Archer v. State, 996 N.E.2d 341, 351 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citing Stafford v. State, 736 N.E.2d 326, 332 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (there, defendant did not make timely objection to jury instructions, and issue was waived for appellate review), trans. denied), trans. denied.

2014See Archer v. State, 996 N.E.2d 341, 351 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citing Stafford v. State, 736 N.E.2d 326, 332 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (there, defendant did not make timely objection to jury instructions, and issue was waived for appellate review), trans. denied), trans. denied.

2013See Potter v. State, 684 N.E.2d 1127, 1135 (Ind. 1997).

2012See Miller v. Ryan, 706 N.E.2d 244, 248 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (no reversible error if failure to give instruction did not substantially and adversely affect rights of complaining party such that result was affected).

1999Jervis, 679 N.E.2d at 879 .

1999See also Jervis v. State, 679 N.E.2d 875 , 879 n. 5 (Ind.1997) (noting that the lack of a requirement in the Indiana rule regarding corroborating circumstances which indicate trustworthiness “renders unclear what indicia of trustworthiness, if any, must be found for the statement to be admitted”).

1997See Harris v. State, 268 Ind. 594 , 377 N.E.2d 632, 634 (1978).

1997See Harris v. State, 268 Ind. 594 , 377 N.E.2d 632, 634 (1978).