Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
In an opinion covering less than two pages, the Court of Appeals of Indiana summarily affirmed a woman’s drug-related convictions, finding she could not challenge the admission of evidence because she explicitly stated at trial that she did not object.
Appellant-defendant Jordyn Maddox was found guilty by jury of possessing methamphetamine and paraphernalia.
On appeal, she challenged the constitutionality of the search of her residence and the admissibility of the incriminating evidence seized.
But citing Taylor v. State, 86 N.E.3d 157 (Ind. 2017), the Court of Appeals declined to review Maddox’s claims because she stated at trial that she did not object to the admission of evidence.
“Our supreme court has stated that ‘we will not review claims, even for fundamental error, when appellants expressly declare at trial that they have no objection,’” Judge Terry Crone wrote, quoting Taylor. “Accordingly, we will not review Maddox’s claims of error and fundamental error, and we affirm her convictions.”
Judge Elaine Brown and Senior Judge Margret Robb concurred in Jordyn L. Maddox v. State of Indiana, 23A-CR-327.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.