admission constituted harmless error in Indiana

2020Fox v. State, 717 N.E.2d 957, 966 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), reh’g denied, trans. denied. “[T]he ultimate determination of the constitutionality of a search or seizure is a question of law that we consider de novo.” Carpenter v. State, 18 N.E.3d 998, 1001 (Ind. 2014).

2020Fox v. State, 717 N.E.2d 957, 966 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), reh’g denied, trans. denied. “[T]he ultimate determination of the constitutionality of a search or seizure is a question of law that we consider de novo.” Carpenter v. State, 18 N.E.3d 998, 1001 (Ind. 2014). [13] In ruling on admissibility following the denial of a motion to suppress, the trial court considers the foundational evidence presented at trial.

2020Fox v. State, 717 N.E.2d 957, 966 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), reh’g denied, trans. denied. “[T]he ultimate determination of the constitutionality of a search or seizure is a question of law that we consider de novo.” Carpenter v. State, 18 N.E.3d 998, 1001 (Ind. 2014).

2020Fox v. State, 717 N.E.2d 957, 966 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), reh’g denied, trans. denied. “[T]he ultimate determination of the constitutionality of a search or seizure is a question of law that we consider de novo.” Carpenter v. State, 18 N.E.3d 998, 1001 (Ind. 2014). [13] In ruling on admissibility following the denial of a motion to suppress, the trial court considers the foundational evidence presented at trial.

2018Fox v. State, 717 N.E.2d 957, 966 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied (2000). “[T]he ultimate determination of the constitutionality of a search or seizure is a question of law that we consider de novo.” Carpenter v. State, 18 N.E.3d 998, 1001 (Ind. 2014). [18] While Mockbee complains that the warrantless entry into Lacey’s home violated his constitutional rights, the State responds, and the trial court agreed, that Mockbee failed to establish that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in Lacey’s residence or that he has standing to challenge the validity of the entry or subsequent search

2017Fox v. State, 717 N.E.2d 957, 966 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans. denied (2000). “[T]he ultimate determination of the constitutionality of a search or seizure is a question of law that we consider de novo.” Carpenter v. State, 18 N.E.3d 998, 1001 (Ind. 2014). [20] While Mockbee complains that the warrantless entry into Lacey’s home violated his constitutional rights, the State responds, and the trial court agreed, that Mockbee failed to establish that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in Lacey’s residence or that he has standing to challenge the validity of the entry or subsequent search

2014Joyner v. State, 678 N.E.2d 386, 390 (Ind.1997), reh’g denied. -Even if the trial court’s decision was an abuse of discretion, we will not reverse if the admission constituted harmless error.

2012Id.

2012Taylor v. State, 904 N.E.2d 259 , 261–62 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied.

2012Taylor v. State, 904 N.E.2d 259, 261-62 (Ind.Ct.App.2009), trans. denied.

2019See Decker v. Zengler, 883 N.E.2d 839, 845 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (“Even if the trial court’s decision was an abuse of discretion, we will not reverse if the admission constituted harmless error.”), trans. denied.

2017Micheau v. State, 893 N.E.2d 1053, 1059 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

2016“Even if the trial court’s decision was an abuse of discretion, we will not reverse if the admission constituted harmless error.” Darringer v. State, 46 N.E.3d 464, 469 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “‘The improper admission [of evidence] is harmless error if the conviction is supported by substantial independent evidence of guilt satisfying the reviewing court there is no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction.’” Evans v. State, 30 N.E.3d 769, 776 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (alteration in original) (quoting Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039, 1059 (Ind. 2011)), trans. den

2016“Even if the trial court’s decision was an abuse of discretion, we will not reverse if the admission constituted harmless error.” Darringer v. State, 46 N.E.3d 464, 469 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “‘The improper admission [of evidence] is harmless error if the conviction is supported by substantial independent evidence of guilt satisfying the reviewing court there is no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction.’” Evans v. State, 30 N.E.3d 769, 776 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (alteration in original) (quoting Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039, 1059 (Ind. 2011)), trans. den

2016“Even if the trial court’s decision was an abuse of discretion, we will not reverse if the admission constituted harmless error.” Darringer v. State, 46 N.E.3d 464, 469 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “‘The improper admission [of evidence] is harmless error if the conviction is supported by substantial independent evidence of guilt satisfying the reviewing court there is no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction.’” Evans v. State, 30 N.E.3d 769, 776 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (alteration in original) (quoting Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039, 1059 (Ind. 2011)), trans. den

2015Even if the trial court’s decision was an abuse of discretion, we will not reverse if the admission constituted harmless error.” Jackson v. State, 996 N.E.2d 378, 382-83 (Ind. App. Ct., 2013) (citation omitted), trans. denied (2014). [7] Morris argues that the testimony regarding his intoxication was irrelevant because he was not charged with public intoxication.

2015Leandrew Beasley v. State, 30 N.E.3d 56, 64 (Ind.Ct.App.2015).