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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT