blatant violation in Indiana

2016To be fundamental error, the error “must constitute a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm must be substantial, and the resulting error must deny the defendant fundamental due process.” Wilson v. State, 514 N.E.2d 282, 284 (Ind. 1987).

2015Put another way, “the error ‘must constitute a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm must be substantial, and the resulting error must deny the defendant fundamental due process.’” Id. (quoting Wilson v. State, 514 N.E.2d 282, 284 (Ind. 1987)). [10] Under Indiana Evidence Rule 702, if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 34A04-1407-CR-318 | Ma

2024Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-JC-996 | January 31, 2024 Page 25 of 42 [45] “On rare occasions, appellate courts may analyze an issue under the fundamental error doctrine to examine an otherwise procedurally defaulted claim.” Eq.W., 124 N.E.3d at 1214 . “[T]his review is extremely narrow and ‘available only when the record reveals a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles, where the harm or potential for harm cannot be denied, and which violation is so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible.’” Id. (quoting Jewell v. State,

2021See Jewell v. State, 887 N.E.2d 939, 942 (Ind. 2008) (“[F]undamental error is extremely narrow and available only when the record reveals a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles, where the harm or potential for harm cannot be denied, and which violation is so prejudicial to the [defendant’s] rights as to make a fair trial impossible.”).

2025Specifically, the State argues that “[q]uestions of double jeopardy implicate fundamental rights and, as such, may be raised for the first time on appeal, or even by this [C]ourt sua sponte.” Id. (quoting Howell v. State, 97 N.E.3d 253, 263 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied). [20] Under the fundamental error doctrine, we may review an issue raised by a party for the first time on appeal if the alleged error “‘constitutes a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm is substantial, and the resulting error denies the defendant fundamental due process.’” Halliburton,

2019Specifically, he would have had to show “a blatant violation of basic principles, [that] the harm or potential for harm is substantial, and [that] the resulting error denies the defendant fundamental due process.” Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578, 587 (Ind. 2006).

2026An error is fundamental error when the error “made a fair trial impossible or constituted a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles of due process presenting an undeniable and substantial potential for harm.” Id. at 652 (quoting Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1281 (Ind. 2014)).

2025Willoughby v. State, 244 N.E.3d 473 , 476 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024), trans. denied. [18] Indeed, to demonstrate fundamental error, an appellant must show that the alleged error “made a fair trial impossible or constituted a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles of due process presenting an undeniable and substantial potential for harm.” Durden v. State, 99 N.E.3d 645, 652 (Ind. 2018) (emphases added; quotation marks omitted).

2020To qualify as fundamental error, “an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible” and must “constitute a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm must be substantial, and the resulting error must deny the defendant fundamental due process.” Benson v. State, 762 N.E.2d 748, 755 (Ind. 2002) (internal quotations and citations omitted). [11] Indiana Evidence Rule 702(a) provides: A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an Court of Appeal

2019To qualify as fundamental error, the " 'error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible' and must 'constitute a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm must be substantial, and the resulting error must deny the defendant fundamental due process.' " Id. (quoting Benson v. State , 762 N.E.2d 748 , 755 (Ind. 2002) ). [7] In Indiana, a crime may not be proven based solely on a confession.

2019To rise to the level of fundamental error, an error “must constitute a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm must be substantial, and the resulting error must deny the defendant fundamental due process.” Id. (citing Maul v. State, 731 N.E.2d 438, 440 (Ind. 2000)).

2019To rise to the level of fundamental error, an error “must constitute a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm must be substantial, and the resulting error must deny the defendant fundamental due process.” Id. (citing Maul v. State, 731 N.E.2d 438, 440 (Ind. 2000) (citations omitted)). [8] Shelton contends that the hearsay statements of Dr. Sharma were the centerpiece of the State’s arguments “that [he] failed to take the pain medications so he could be evaluated and that he could work any job,” which he asserts serve as the primary bases upon which the court foun

2009To qualify as 'fundamental error,' the error must be a substantial blatant violation of basic principles rendering the trial unfair to the defendant.'" Id. (quoting Townsend v. State, 632 N.E.2d 727, 730 (Ind.1994)).

2009To qualify as `fundamental error,' the error must be a substantial blatant violation of basic principles rendering the trial unfair to the defendant.'" Id. (quoting Townsend v. State, 632 N.E.2d 727, 730 (Ind.1994)).

2002To constitute fundamental error, the error “ ‘must constitute a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm must be substantial, and the resulting error must deny the defendant fundamental due process.’ ” Etienne v. State, 716 N.E.2d 457, 462 (Ind. 1999) (quoting Wilson v. State, 514 N.E.2d 282, 284 (Ind.1987)); see also Barany v. State, 658 N.E.2d 60, 64 (Ind.l995)(defin-ing fundamental error as error “so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible”).

2002To constitute fundamental error, the error "`must constitute a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm must be substantial, and the resulting error must deny the defendant fundamental due process.'" Etienne v. State, 716 N.E.2d 457, 462 (Ind. 1999) (quoting Wilson v. State, 514 N.E.2d 282, 284 (Ind.1987)); see also Barany v. State, 658 N.E.2d 60, 64 (Ind.1995) (defining fundamental error as error "so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible").

2026An error is fundamental error when the error “made a fair trial impossible or constituted a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles of due process presenting an undeniable and substantial potential for harm.” Id. at 652 (quoting Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1281 (Ind. 2014)).

2025“An error is fundamental, and thus reviewable on appeal, if it ‘made a fair trial impossible or constituted a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles of due process presenting an undeniable and substantial potential for harm.’” Durden, 99 N.E.3d at 652 (quoting Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274, 1281 (Ind. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted in original).

2006"In order for this court to overturn a trial court ruling based on fundamental error, the error must have been `a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles, and the harm or potential for harm therefrom must be substantial and appear clearly and prospectively.'" S.M. v. Elkhart County Office of Family & Children, 706 N.E.2d 596, 600 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (quoting Reynolds v. State, 460 N.E.2d 506, 508 (Ind. 1984)).

2000To overturn a trial court ruling based on fundamental error, we must conclude that the error was “a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles, and the harm or potential for harm therefrom must be substantial and appear clearly and prospectively.” S.M. v. Elkhart County Office of Family and Children, 706 N.E.2d 596, 600 (Ind.Ct.App.1999).

2014“To constitute fundamental error, the error must constitute a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm must be substantial, and the resulting error must deny the defendant fundamental due process.” Brown v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1064, 1067 (Ind. 2003) (citation and quotations omitted).

2013To constitute fundamental error, “the error must constitute a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm must be substantial, and the resulting error must deny the defendant fundamental due process.” Brown v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1064, 1067 (Ind. 2003). 4 Derry specifically claims that the trial court rejected the plea agreement because it was presented after the plea bargain deadline had expired and fundamental error resulted when the trial court imposed a harsher sentence than the one-year sentence on work release that the State had recommended.

2017To be considered fundamental error, an error must “constitute a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm, or potential for harm is substantial, and the resulting error must deny the defendant fundamental due process.” Spears v. State, 811 N.E.2d 485, 488 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). 2 Over eighteen months elapsed between the filing of the charging information and the start of his jury trial.

2016To be considered fundamental, an error “ ‘must constitute a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm, or potential for harm must be substantial, and the re- *1202 suiting error must deny the defendant fundamental due process.”’ Id. at 210-11 (quoting Spears v. State, 811 N.E.2d 485, 488 (Ind.Ct.App.2004)).

2020Lehman v. State, 926 N.E.2d 35, 38 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied.

2019Lehman v. State, 926 N.E.2d 35, 38 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied.

2014A party’s failure to object at trial results in waiver, unless error is fundamental, i.e. “a blatant violation of basic principles rendering the trial unfair.” Davis v. State, 835 N.E.2d 1102, 1107 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans denied.

2013First, we note that a party's failure to object at trial results in waiver, unless error is fundamental, i.e. “a blatant violation of basic principles rendering the trial unfair.” Davis v. State, 835 N.E.2d 1102, 1107 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied.

2009To be fundamental, an error must be "a substantial blatant violation of basic principles rendering the trial unfair to the defendant." Id. (quoting Hart v. State, 578 N.E.2d 336, 337 (Ind.1991)).

2008To qualify as ‘fundamental error,’ the error must be a substantial blatant violation of basic principles rendering the trial unfair to the defendant.” Id. (quoting Hart v. State, 578 N.E.2d 336, 337 (Ind.1991)).

2020See Hall v. State, 108 N.E.3d 351, 355 (Ind. Ct App. 2018). [25] To prove fundamental error, one must “‘show that the trial court should have raised the issue sua sponte due to a blatant violation of basic and elementary principles, undeniable harm or potential for harm, and prejudice that makes a Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1112 | August 31, 2020 Page 13 of 29 fair trial impossible.’” Taylor v. State, 86 N.E.3d 157, 162 (Ind. 2017) (quoting Harris v. State, 76 N.E.3d 137, 140 (Ind. 2017)).

2018To prove fundamental error, Shoaf must “‘show that the trial court should have raised the issue sua sponte due to a blatant violation of basic and elementary principles, undeniable harm or potential for harm, and prejudice that makes a fair trial impossible.’” Taylor v. State, 86 N.E.3d 157, 162 (Ind. 2017) (quoting Harris v. State, 76 N.E.3d 137, 140 (Ind. 2017)).

2001In Charlton v. State, 702 N.E.2d 1045, 1051 (Ind.1998), the court stated: Fundamental error is a substantial blatant violation of basic principles rendering the trial unfair to the defendant and, thereby, depriving the defendant of fundamental due process.

2001“Fundamental error is a substantial blatant violation of basic principles rendering the trial unfair to the defendant and, thereby, depriving the defendant of fundamental due process.” Id.

2019Fundamental error allows us to “address an error that made a fair trial impossible or constituted a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles of due process presenting an undeniable and substantial potential for harm[.]” Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946, 974 (Ind. 2014) (internal quotations and alterations omitted).

2019Fundamental error allows this court to “address an error that made a fair trial impossible or constituted a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles of due process presenting an undeniable and substantial potential for harm[.]” Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946, 974 (Ind. 2014) (internal quotations and alterations omitted), cert. denied, 135 S.Ct. 970 (2015).

2020Pope v. State, 737 N.E.2d 374, 380 (Ind. 2000).

2017Pope v. State, 737 N.E.2d 374, 380 (Ind. 2000).

2025However, our Supreme Court declined to extend the fundamental-error exception to procedural defaults under the exhaustion rule, as doing so would “both weaken the exhaustion rule and utilize fundamental error not as a ‘narrow exception’ but as Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-CR-2330 | May 15, 2025 Page 7 of 12 the general rule.” Whiting v. State, 969 N.E.2d 24, 34 (Ind. 2012).

2020For an appellate court to overturn a trial court ruling based on fundamental error, “‘the error [must have been] so egregious and abhorrent to fundamental due process that the trial judge should or should not have acted, irrespective of the parties’ failure to object or otherwise preserve the error for appeal.’” In re G.P., 4 N.E.3d 1158 , 1167 n.8 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Whiting v. State, 969 N.E.2d 24, 34 (Ind. 2012)). [21] Here, Father has failed to identify the harm that made a fair hearing impossible.

2006"In order for this court to overturn a trial court ruling based on fundamental error, the error must have been `a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles, and the harm or potential for harm therefrom must be substantial and appear clearly and prospectively.'" S.M. v. Elkhart County Office of Family & Children, 706 N.E.2d 596, 600 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (quoting Reynolds v. State, 460 N.E.2d 506, 508 (Ind. 1984)).

1999In order for this court to overturn a trial court ruling based on fundamental error, the error must have been “a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles, and the harm or potential for harm therefrom must be substantial and appear clearly and prospectively.” Reynolds v. State, 460 N.E.2d 506, 508 (Ind.1984) (emphasis added).

2019Fundamental error is “a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles, and the harm or potential for harm therefrom must be substantial and apparent.” James v. State, 613 N.E.2d 15, 25 (Ind. 1993).

2017To be “fundamental,” error must be “a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles, and the harm or potential for harm therefrom must be substantial and apparent.” James v. State, 613 N.E.2d 15, 25 (Ind. 1993).

2014As noted above, to be considered “fundamental,” the error must represent a blatant violation of basic principles rendering the trial unfair to the defendant and “thereby depriving the defendant of fundamental due process.” Id. at 1178 .

2013To be considered “fundamental,” the error must represent a blatant violation of basic principles rendering the trial unfair to the defendant and “thereby depriving the defendant of fundamental due process.” Id. at 1178 .

2020Id. at 668 . [22] To show prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant must show that the alleged misconduct (1) constituted a clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles of due process; (2) presented an undeniable and substantial potential for harm; and (3) made a fair trial impossible.

2017Stated another way, the defendant must show that, given the circumstances, the trial court erred when it did not raise the issue sua sponte because the alleged error was a blatant violation of due process and presented “an undeniable and substantial potential for harm.” Id. [13] Our Supreme Court has cautioned against the use of show-up identifications because of their inherent suggestiveness, see Wethington v. State, 560 N.E.2d 496, 501 (Ind. 1990), but identification evidence gathered via a show-up procedure is “not subject to a per se rule of exclusion[,]” Gordon, 981 N.E.2d at 1218 .

2023The fundamental error exception to the contemporaneous-objection requirement applies only “when the error Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CR-917| April 24, 2023 Page 12 of 17 constitutes a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm is substantial, and the resulting error denies the defendant fundamental due process.” Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204, 207 (Ind. 2010) (quotation omitted).

2012Nothing in this issue is “a blatant violation of basic principles,” or shows 4 that “the harm or potential for harm is substantial.” Brown, 929 N.E.2d at 207 .

2018He therefore argues that the admission of the messages constituted fundamental error. [7] To qualify as fundamental error, “an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible.” Mitchell v. State, 726 N.E.2d 1228, 1236 (Ind. 2000). “[T]he error must constitute a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm must be substantial, and the resulting error must deny the defendant fundamental due process.” Id. [8] Hauk argues that the text messages constitute inadmissible hearsay, and the State does not disagree.

2018He therefore argues that the admission of the messages constituted fundamental error. [7] To qualify as fundamental error, “an error must be so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as to make a fair trial impossible.” Mitchell v. State, 726 N.E.2d 1228, 1236 (Ind. 2000). “[T]he error must constitute a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm must be substantial, and the resulting error must deny the defendant fundamental due process.” Id. [8] Hauk argues that the text messages constitute inadmissible hearsay, and the State does not disagree.