ILNews

Court clarifies continuing objection procedure

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

If a trial court grants a continuing objection, counsel doesn't have to object each time the class of evidence is subsequently offered, but if the trial court doesn't specifically grant the right to a continuing objection, counsel must object to the evidence as it is offered in order to preserve the issue on appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

The appellate court used its opinion in Brandi Hayworth v. State of Indiana, No. 07A01-0804-CR-197, to clarify that the proper procedure when a continuing objection is granted is for counsel to remain silent during the subsequent admission of that class of evidence. In the instant case, Brandi Hayworth's attorney attempted to lodge a continuing objection, which wasn't granted. Subsequently, counsel would object to some evidence as either a continuing objection or offer no objection.

Hayworth was on trial for felony dealing in methamphetamine, felony possession of methamphetamine, and possession of anhydrous ammonia or ammonia solution with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine while in possession of a firearm. Brown County Deputy Sheriff Scott Southerland prepared an affidavit for a search warrant of her home based on information from an unidentified informant; at trial, Southerland testified the informant hadn't actually seen any methamphetamine on the property, hadn't seen Hayworth manufacture the drug on the property or use the drug. The trial court denied Hayworth's motion to suppress; she was found guilty of felony dealing and possession of methamphetamine.

The Court of Appeals found Hayworth waived the issue that the trial court erred by admitting evidence found at her home during the execution of the search warrant. Because the trial court didn't grant her a continuing objection, she had to object to each and every piece of evidence in order to preserve her challenge on appeal; instead, for unknown reasons, Hayworth said "no objection" to some evidence, was silent about the admission of other evidence, or said "continuing objection." By saying "no objection" to the majority of evidence against her, she waived her right to appeal that evidence, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik.

However, the appellate court examined the admission of evidence for fundamental error. The trial court found the totality of the circumstances corroborated the informant's statements, but the Court of Appeals disagreed. The information affirmed in the search warrant was information the general public could gather by passing by the home and there was no evidence the informant had given the police correct information in the past, wrote the judge. Southerland's testimony at trial said the informant hadn't actually seen any drug activity, making his affidavit misleading. The hearsay in this case fails to satisfy the Fourth Amendment or Indiana Code Section 35-33-5-2, wrote Judge Vaidik, as there was no probable cause to support the search warrant.

The good faith exception also doesn't apply in the case because the magistrate was misled by the information in the affidavit. Southerland's admissions at the suppression hearing amount to deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct and the error of admitting the evidence was so prejudicial to Hayworth's rights that a fair trial was impossible, wrote Judge Vaidik. The appellate court reversed her convictions and remanded the case.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT