proposed alternative instruction in Indiana

2016“Thus, at a minimum, ‘appellate review of a claim of error in the giving of a jury instruction requires a timely trial objection clearly identifying both the claimed objectionable matter and the grounds for the objection,’ though tendering a proposed alternative instruction is recommended.” Id. (quoting Scisney, 701 N.E.2d at 849 ). [12] Watkins did not object to the instructions or tender a relevant jury instruction.

2016“Thus, at a minimum, ‘appellate review of a claim of error in the giving of a jury instruction requires a timely trial objection clearly identifying both the claimed objectionable matter and the grounds for the objection,’ though tendering a proposed alternative instruction is recommended.” Id. (quoting Scisney, 701 N.E.2d at 849 ). [12] Watkins did not object to the instructions or tender a relevant jury instruction.

2006See Williamson v. State, 798 N.E.2d 450, 452-53 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003) (addressing appellant's double jeopardy claim), trans. denied (2004). [2] We note that prior to McCann's trial, our supreme court stated that "the tender of a proposed alternative instruction is not necessarily required to preserve the claim of error." Scisney v. State, 701 N.E.2d 847, 849 (Ind.1998). [3] Although McCann's counsel raised intent as an issue at trial, McCann himself twice interrupted the proceedings to assert that someone else had committed the charged crimes.