effects waiver in Indiana

2024See Durden v. State, 99 N.E.3d 645, 651 (Ind. 2018) (“A party’s failure to object to an alleged error at trial results in waiver.”); Konopasek v. State, 946 N.E.2d 23, 27 (Ind. 2011). (“[A] defendant may not argue one ground for an objection to the admission of evidence at trial and then raise new grounds on appeal.”). [20] Sincere attempts to avoid the effects of his waiver by claiming fundamental error. 2 Because we conclude that admission of Detective Hart’s testimony was harmless, we need not consider Sincere’s alternative argument that the testimony amounted to impermissible vouching test

2024See Durden v. State, 99 N.E.3d 645, 651 (Ind. 2018) (“A party’s failure to object to an alleged error at trial results in waiver.”); Konopasek v. State, 946 N.E.2d 23, 27 (Ind. 2011). (“[A] defendant may not argue one ground for an objection to the admission of evidence at trial and then raise new grounds on appeal.”). [20] Sincere attempts to avoid the effects of his waiver by claiming fundamental error. 2 Because we conclude that admission of Detective Hart’s testimony was harmless, we need not consider Sincere’s alternative argument that the testimony amounted to impermissible vouching test

2024“The fundamental error exception is ‘extremely narrow, and applies only when the 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.’” Delarosa v. State, 938 N.E.2d 690, 694 (Ind. 2010) (quoting Matthews v. State, 849 N.E.2d Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CR-783 | January 24, 2024 Page 23 of 33 578, 587 (Ind. 2006)).

2024Phillips v. State, 719 N.E.2d 809, 811 (Ind. 1999). [40] The only way for Konkle to avoid the effects his waiver would be to establish that fundamental error occurred.

2023Rather, a trial court’s evaluation of potential juror bias is entitled to “the highest degree of respect[.]” Id. at 511 ; see Brock v. State, 955 N.E.2d 195, 208 (Ind. 2011) (determining the trial judge did not abuse its discretion in granting a mistrial due to defense misconduct during closing argument although “another trial judge might have employed another method to reduce the effects of defense counsel’s comments”), cert. denied. [31] Nearly 200 years ago, the United States Supreme Court articulated the standard we still apply to a mistrial granted over the defendant’s objection: courts m

2023Although the defendant’s “right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal” is valued, in some instances it must “be subordinated to the public’s interest in fair trials designed to end in just judgments.” Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 689 (1949).

2023Rather, a trial court’s evaluation of potential juror bias is entitled to “the highest degree of respect[.]” Id. at 511 ; see Brock v. State, 955 N.E.2d 195, 208 (Ind. 2011) (determining the trial judge did not abuse its discretion in granting a mistrial due to defense misconduct during closing argument although “another trial judge might have employed another method to reduce the effects of defense counsel’s comments”), cert. denied. [31] Nearly 200 years ago, the United States Supreme Court articulated the standard we still apply to a mistrial granted over the defendant’s objection: courts m

2018“The fundamental error exception is ‘extremely narrow, and applies 1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444, 479 (1966).

2018Scarbrough does not attempt to avoid the effects of his waiver by claiming that the admission amounted to fundamental error, which is “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.” Jewell v. State, 887 N.E.2d 939, 942 (Ind. 2008).

2018A failure to object may avoid default if the misconduct at issue constitutes fundamental error, meaning 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. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 28A05-1711-CR-2702 | August 27, 2018 Page 4 of 10 2002) (quoting Benson v. State, 762 N.E.2d 748, 756 (Ind. 2002)).

2018A failure to object may avoid default if the misconduct at issue constitutes fundamental error, meaning 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. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 28A05-1711-CR-2702 | August 27, 2018 Page 4 of 10 2002) (quoting Benson v. State, 762 N.E.2d 748, 756 (Ind. 2002)).

2017The error claimed must either “make a fair trial impossible” or constitute “clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process.” Id. (quoting Clark v. State, 915 N.E.2d 126, 131 (Ind. 2009)).

2017Robertson attempts to avoid the effects of his waiver by arguing that the admission of the testimony amounts to fundamental error. [19] The fundamental error exception is “extremely narrow, and applies only when the error constitutes a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm is substantial, and the resulting error denies the defendant Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A04-1705-CR-1153 | December 27, 2017 Page 11 of 14 fundamental due process.” Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204, 207 (Ind. 2010) (quoting Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578, 587 (Ind. 200

2017Robertson attempts to avoid the effects of his waiver by arguing that the admission of the testimony amounts to fundamental error. [19] The fundamental error exception is “extremely narrow, and applies only when the error constitutes a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm is substantial, and the resulting error denies the defendant Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 53A04-1705-CR-1153 | December 27, 2017 Page 11 of 14 fundamental due process.” Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204, 207 (Ind. 2010) (quoting Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578, 587 (Ind. 200

2017The error claimed must either “make a fair trial impossible” or constitute “clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process.” Id. (quoting Clark v. State, 915 N.E.2d 126, 131 (Ind. 2009)).

2016Fundamental error is “error so egregious that reversal of a criminal conviction is required even if no objection to the error is registered at trial.” Hopkins v. State, 782 N.E.2d 988, 991 (Ind. 2003).