The defendant first contends that reversible error occurred because one of the jurors took notes during the trial and used the notes during deliberations. The defendant argues that the trial judge should have observed and prohibited this conduct. However, we are unable to consider whether the trial court's actions constituted an abuse of discretion under the circumstances because defendant's claims are not supported by the record and because of the absence of any objection or motion at trial.
Bare assertions of error are not available for review on appeal. Reames v. State , Ind. Upon discovery of possible juror misconduct, a party has the duty and responsibility to formally raise the issue with the presiding court in a timely manner. Whiting v. Having presented no support in the record for his bare allegation that a juror improperly took and used notes, and having failed to bring the alleged misconduct to the trial court's attention during the trial, the defendant has waived this issue.
The defendant next argues that the trial court erroneously refused to permit questioning of the State's witness Bruce Delphia, the defendant's accomplice, regarding Delphia's prior mental condition. Prior to commencement of trial, the defendant asserted that Delphia was an incompetent witness due to a prior history of treatment for a mental disorder. Although not necessary, the trial court expressly qualified his ruling "pending some evidence or further argument from the defendant.
Notwithstanding the challenge to his mental competency as a witness, Delphia was permitted to testify. While acknowledging that competency is a question only for the court, the defendant argues that credibility is an issue for jury determination, and he asserts that he should have been entitled to fully cross-examine Delphia regarding his prior mental condition.
During the defense cross-examination of Delphia, however, we find no attempts by defense counsel to ask questions or otherwise present evidence regarding any history of prior mental problems. A motion in limine is not a final ruling on the admissibility of evidence, but rather serves to prevent the display of prejudicial material to the jury until the trial court has the opportunity to make an evidentiary ruling within the trial context.
Greene v. While the final evidentiary ruling is appealable, a ruling on a motion in limine usually preserves nothing for appeal. See also Washburn v. To preserve error, a party must, during trial but out of the hearing of the jury, propose the questions or offer the evidence believed to be prohibited by the order in limine and obtain a final evidentiary ruling.
Rohrkaste v. City of Terre Haute , Ind. Failure to offer the excluded material constitutes waiver of the issue. In the present case, defense counsel's cross-examination of Delphia did not include any attempt to ask any questions regarding prior hospitalization and treatment. Defense counsel's trial strategy appeared to be acquiescence to the limits imposed by the granting of the motion.
At one point during a discussion with the trial judge regarding the scope of the motion in limine, defense counsel claimed his line of questioning was within the limitations of the motion in limine and that he was not trying to delve into Delphia's past psychiatric history. The record also contains defense counsel's request for time during trial to instruct his witnesses to make no reference to Delphia's psychiatric care, because "[t]here's still a motion in limine in this matter.
The defendant next claims that error resulted because he was limited in impeaching a witness, Benita Delphia, by cross-examination regarding her juvenile record. He cites Terrell v. We disagree. As a general rule, evidence relating to juvenile delinquency proceedings cannot later be used as evidence for purposes of impeachment.
Perkins v. See also Goolsby v. Admission of the juvenile records was permitted in Terrell only because counsel had stated in his opening statement that the witness had "no record. Terrell does not apply here.
We find no error on this issue. The defendant contends that he was identified as the perpetrator only by circumstantial evidence and that such evidence was not sufficiently substantial to remove reasonable doubt. The defendant was identified at trial by his accomplice, Delphia, who testified that he was present when the defendant, wearing a gorilla mask and carrying a knife, robbed the Village Pantry store. Bradley also sought out practical experience through significant student externships in several government offices and courts:.
McKinney School of Law, from which he graduated cum laude. Over four years, his initiative and skill were recognized as he continued to achieve, taking on several significant roles:. Bradley then returned to the MCPO, where he continued to climb and gain trial experience as a deputy prosecutor. Although Bradley prosecuted a broad range of misdemeanors and felonies, his work focused on fatality and serious bodily injury hit and run cases as well as white collar crimes.
Having acquired significant trial experience and impressive litigation skills, Bradley moved to private practice. Working from downtown Indianapolis, he now uses his years of skill and professional development to benefit clients around the state.
Maintaining a practice solely focused on litigation, Bradley has tried dozens of jury trials and more than bench trials around the state, appearing in courts in nearly every county in Indiana. Bradley is especially drawn to—and sought out for—high stakes cases involving complicated analyses, and he has repeatedly demonstrated success in cases with multiple moving parts that require the sharpest of legal approaches.
As an Indiana criminal defense lawyer at Keffer Hirschauer LLP , he regularly handles trial and appellate level cases involving:. He also defends against misdemeanor and felony charges and helps clients clear their records and get their lives back on track through expungements , sentence modification , and pardons and clemency petitions. An expungement allows someone with a criminal record to clean the slate, so to speak, and make a fresh start without the baggage or public record from his or her criminal past.
However, an expungement requires court approval and involves a law-defined process with strict requirements. The skills Bradley has cultivated over the years as an Indiana criminal defense lawyer also translate into effective counsel and representation when he serves as your Indiana Title IX attorney or conducts Title IX investigations and defense. Gotkin is one of the more than one million lawyers in United States. Before choosing Jonathan S. Gotkin as your lawyer, you should consider whether Jonathan S.
Gotkin offers free consultation, if not how much the initial interview costs, if there is any hidden attorney fees, what's the fee schedule, whether he or she has good community reputation and is able to provide a list of good references. You can also contact the Board of Professional Responsibility of the state bar, to find out if Jonathan S.
Gotkin has ever been placed under any disciplinary actions. Please be aware that, though Jonathan S. Gotkin's office is located at Indianapolis, IN, he or she might belong to the bar association of other states. You should also ask how long the lawyer has been in practice, how much experience he or she has in cases like yours, and more importantly, the outcomes of those cases! Focus of the lawyer's practice and years of experience are also very important factors in your evaluation process.
0コメント