13 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Morgan v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See e.g., Morgan v. State, 400 N.E.2d 111, 114 (Ind. 1980) (holding that the defendant waived challenge to the trial court’s denial of his motion for a separate trial from a co-defendant by failing to move for a separate trial and that, nonetheless, his argument that he was prejudiced by a witness was also waived because the defendant did not object to her testimony, ask that the testimony be stricken, or cross-examine the witness). [22] Waiver notwithstanding, Belk’s argument that he was prejudiced ultimately relies on his contention that there was insufficient evidence regarding his identifi 2015See, e.g., Morgan v. State, 400 N.E.2d 111, 114 (Ind. 1980) (holding that the defendant waived challenge to the trial court’s denial of his motion for a separate trial from a co-defendant by failing to move for a separate trial and that, nonetheless, his argument that he was prejudiced by a witness was also waived because the defendant did not object to her testimony, ask that the testimony be stricken, or cross-examine the witness). [23] Waiver notwithstanding, Riley’s argument that he was prejudiced ultimately relies on his contention that there was a lack of evidence regarding his involveme | 2 | 2 |
Wiggins v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Adams v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1169, 1172 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (holding that the defendant waived his challenge to the constitutionality of a statute because he failed to file a motion to dismiss in the trial court); Wiggins v. State, 727 N.E.2d 1, 5 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (holding that the defendant waived his argument that the statute was unconstitutionally vague even though he had filed a motion to dismiss because the motion only alleged that the statute violated the prohibition against ex post facto laws). 4 . 2009See Adams v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1169, 1172 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (holding that the defendant waived his challenge to the constitutionality of a statute because he failed to file a motion to dismiss in the trial court); Wiggins v. State, 727 N.E.2d 1, 5 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (holding that the defendant waived his argument that the statute was unconstitutionally vague even though he had filed a motion to dismiss because the motion only alleged that the statute violated the prohibition against ex post facto laws). 3 . | 2 | 2 |
Adams v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See Adams v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1169, 1172 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (holding that the defendant waived his challenge to the constitutionality of a statute because he failed to file a motion to dismiss in the trial court); Wiggins v. State, 727 N.E.2d 1, 5 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (holding that the defendant waived his argument that the statute was unconstitutionally vague even though he had filed a motion to dismiss because the motion only alleged that the statute violated the prohibition against ex post facto laws). 4 . 2009See Adams v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1169, 1172 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (holding that the defendant waived his challenge to the constitutionality of a statute because he failed to file a motion to dismiss in the trial court); Wiggins v. State, 727 N.E.2d 1, 5 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (holding that the defendant waived his argument that the statute was unconstitutionally vague even though he had filed a motion to dismiss because the motion only alleged that the statute violated the prohibition against ex post facto laws). 3 . | 2 | 2 |
Collins v. Stategreen1 sentence2025Our Supreme Court, however, has held that such a tactic waives the issue for appeal.8 In Collins v. State, 464 N.E.2d 1286, 1290 (Ind. 1984), our Supreme Court held that the defendant waived his challenge to the denial of his motion in limine regarding prior convictions because the “defendant introduced the evidence concerning his prior convictions himself on direct examination.” The Court noted that, “[w]hile defense counsel may have believed that this was an appropriate tactical decision, defendant, by his choice to introduce this 6 Dr. Gregori repeated much of this information again upon qu | 1 | 1 |
Levetta Tunstall v. Dawn Manninggreen1 sentence2025Our Supreme Court, however, has held that such a tactic waives the issue for appeal.8 In Collins v. State, 464 N.E.2d 1286, 1290 (Ind. 1984), our Supreme Court held that the defendant waived his challenge to the denial of his motion in limine regarding prior convictions because the “defendant introduced the evidence concerning his prior convictions himself on direct examination.” The Court noted that, “[w]hile defense counsel may have believed that this was an appropriate tactical decision, defendant, by his choice to introduce this 6 Dr. Gregori repeated much of this information again upon qu | 1 | 1 |
Tyrice J. Halliburton v. State of Indianagreen1 sentence2020See Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670, 683 (Ind. 2013) (observing that the law is well settled that a defendant may not argue one ground for objection at trial and then raise new grounds on appeal, the defendant made no claim at trial that evidence of the burglary did not fit any of the 404(b) exceptions, nor did he contend at trial that evidence of the burglary Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-2028 | April 15, 2020 Page 12 of 16 was bad character evidence prohibited by Rule 404(b), and holding that the defendant waived the claim of error for appellate review). [23] To | 1 | 1 |
West v. Stategreen1 sentence2005See, e.g., West, 755 N.E.2d at 184 (holding that the defendant waived a claim that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence where the defendant made no offer to prove after the State objected to defense counsel's line of questioning). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wenzel Williams v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2025Id. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Ziad Abd v. State of Indiana
green
1 sentence2024Id. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Brown v. State
green
1 sentence2015“This exception is available only in egregious circumstances.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). [21] In Baker, the defendant waived his claim of instructional error but argued that he was deprived of a fair trial. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Eaton v. State
green
1 sentence2006Id. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Ford v. State
green
1 sentence2000Because a defendant who fails to object to an instruction at trial waives any challenge to that instruction on appeal, T.R. 51(C); Ford, 704 N.E.2d at 461 , we find that the defendant waived this claim. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Steward v. State
green
2 sentences1995The Court of Appeals discussed the possible problems with the use of such syndrome evidence for the purpose of vouching for a victim's credibility, correctly noting that a witness may not testify that another is or is not telling the truth, Steward, 636 N.E.2d at 146-47 ; see Ind.Evidence Rule 704(b), but finding that the defendant waived this claim of error by failing to make a timely objection. 1995As to his conviction for molesting A.M., we agree with the Court of Appeals's finding that by failing to object to the testimony, the defendant waived his claim, Steward, 636 N.E.2d at 147 ; and we find that no fundamental error occurred. [2] Ind. Code Ann. § 35-42-4-3 (c) (West 1986). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.