defendant to avoid waiver in Indiana

2025See Ind. Evidence Rule 103; Sampson v. State, 38 N.E.3d 985, 992 (Ind. 2015). [10] “Fundamental error is an extremely narrow exception that allows a defendant to avoid waiver of an issue.” Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831, 835 (Ind. 2006).

2018“Fundamental error is an extremely narrow exception that allows a defendant to avoid waiver of an issue.” Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831, 835 (Ind. 2006).

2013Fundamental error is an extremely narrow exception that allows a defendant to avoid waiver of an issue, and is appropriate only when an alleged error makes “a fair trial impossible or constitute[s] 4 clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process . . . present[ing] an undeniable and substantial potential for harm.” Id. (quoting Benson v. State, 762 N.E.2d 748, 756 (Ind. 2002)).

2012Fundamental error is an “extremely narrow exception that allows a defendant to avoid waiver of an issue” and “makes ‘a fair trial impossible or constitute[s] clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process … present[ing] an undeniable and substantial potential for harm.’” Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831, 835 (Ind. 2006) (quoting Benson v. State, 762 N.E.2d 748, 756 (Ind. 2002)).

2013Fundamental error is an “extremely narrow exception” to the contemporaneous objection rule that allows a defendant to avoid waiver of an issue. [Cooper, 854 N.E.2d at 835 .] For a claim of prosecutorial misconduct to rise to the level of fundamental error, it must “make a fair trial impossible or constitute clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process and present an undeniable and substantial potential for harm.” [Booher v. State, 773 N.E.2d 814, 817 (Ind. 2002)] (citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted).

2013Fundamental error is an extremely narrow exception that allows a defendant to avoid waiver of an issue, and is appropriate only when an alleged error makes “a fair trial impossible or constitute[s] 4 clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process . . . present[ing] an undeniable and substantial potential for harm.” Id. (quoting Benson v. State, 762 N.E.2d 748, 756 (Ind. 2002)).

2020See Baker v. State, 948 N.E.2d 1169, 1178 (Ind. 2011) (finding the appellant had neither objected to the trial court’s instruction nor offered an instruction of his own and accordingly waived the issue), reh’g denied; Ind. Trial Rule 51(C) (“No party may claim as error the giving of an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.”). [6] To the extent Goode asserts Preliminary Instruction No. 4 constituted fundamental error, we observe that fundamental error is an extrem

2018See Benefield v. State, 904 N.E.2d 239, 245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied; see also Baker, 948 N.E.2d at 1178 (observing the defendant did not object to the trial court’s instruction and accordingly waived any challenge to the instruction); Ind. Trial Rule 51(C) (“No party may claim as error the giving of an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.”). [20] To the extent Jetter asserts that Instruction No. 20 constituted fundamental error, we observe that funda

2018Neville v. State , 976 N.E.2d 1252 , 1258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (quoting Cooper v. State , 854 N.E.2d 831 , 835 (Ind. 2006) ), trans. denied .

2014The fundamental error doctrine “is an ‘extremely narrow exception’ to the contemporaneous objection rule that allows a defendant to avoid waiver of an issue.” Neville v. State, 976 N.E.2d 1252, 1258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (quoting Cooper, 854 N.E.2d at 835 ), trans. denied.

2025See Ind. Evidence Rule 103; Sampson v. State, 38 N.E.3d 985, 992 (Ind. 2015). [10] “Fundamental error is an extremely narrow exception that allows a defendant to avoid waiver of an issue.” Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831, 835 (Ind. 2006).

2018See Benefield v. State, 904 N.E.2d 239, 245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied; see also Baker, 948 N.E.2d at 1178 (observing the defendant did not object to the trial court’s instruction and accordingly waived any challenge to the instruction); Ind. Trial Rule 51(C) (“No party may claim as error the giving of an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.”). [20] To the extent Jetter asserts that Instruction No. 20 constituted fundamental error, we observe that funda

2017Nichols v. State, 55 N.E.3d 854, 862 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans denied.

2014Sobolewski v. State, 889 N.E.2d 849, 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

2013“The element of harm is not shown by the fact that a defendant was ultimately convicted.” Davis v. State, 835 N.E.2d 1102, 1107 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied (2006).

2013It is error that makes “a fair trial impossible or constitute[s] clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process . . . present[ing] an undeniable and substantial potential for harm.” Coleman v. State, 946 N.E.2d 1160, 1166-67 (Ind. 2011) (alteration in original) (citation omitted).