Opinion ID: 853390
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Retaining Witness in Jail and Excluding Evidence

Text: The defendant also contends that the trial court erred by assuming an adversarial role by keeping the State's witness in jail for no reason but to testify against the defendant, and by failing to disclose to the jury what it had done. Appellant's Br. at 14. We reject the defendant's claim that the judge assumed an improper adversarial role for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the claim of bias and prejudice. As to the claim of excluded evidence, prior to trial, the court granted the State's motion in limine seeking to prohibit the jury from hearing evidence of [M.S.'s] criminal history and incarceration. Record at 104. The State now argues that the defendant failed at trial to make any offer of proof or to otherwise seek relief from the order in limine. In order to preserve an error for appellate review, the excluded evidence must be offered at trial to give the trial court an opportunity to rule on its admissibility at that time. Miller v. State, 716 N.E.2d 367, 370 (Ind. 1999). The defendant does not direct us to any offer of proof or other action taken during trial to raise this question, and we find none. The exclusion of the challenged evidence is therefore not an available issue on appeal.