Opinion ID: 2078306
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Opportunity To Make A Record

Text: Von Almen claims the trial court erred at three different times by refusing to allow him to make a record, thereby prejudicing the presentation of his defense and limiting the areas of his appeal. The importance of establishing a record as a prerequisite to appellate review cannot be understated. An appellant has the obligation to make the proper specific objection and to preserve the record for appeal. Underwood v. State (1981), Ind., 414 N.E.2d 588. A question cannot be raised on appeal unless a proper and timely objection is made in the trial court. Sams v. State (1969), 251 Ind. 571, 243 N.E.2d 879. Grounds for objection not raised in the trial court are not available on appeal. Strickland v. State (1977), 265 Ind. 664, 359 N.E.2d 244. Review of the record reveals that Von Almen was able to make a record on each allegation of error. Von Almen's efforts may have been limited, but the trial court has broad discretion in the control of proceedings. Drake v. State (1984), Ind., 467 N.E.2d 686. In the first instance of alleged error, defense counsel objected to the prosecutor's use of the term murder to describe the victim's death. The trial court overruled the objection. Later, at an in camera discussion of a different matter, defense counsel asked to state further grounds for that objection. The judge refused, noting that the objection and ruling were on the record. Defense counsel was not precluded from making a record; he simply was barred from citing new grounds for an objection long after it was overruled. In the second episode, defense counsel claimed the victim's family made prejudicial comments while defense witnesses were testifying. At one point, after Von Almen's father testified and was returning to his seat, the victim's father called him a liar. Defense counsel requested that the court order the victim's family to refrain from making further comments and to sit away from the jury. He further requested that the jury be admonished to disregard any comments made by the victim's father to Von Almen's father. After allowing both the defense and prosecution to state their positions, the trial judge ruled that the exchange between the two parents did not seem unusual. The judge agreed to give a final instruction on the matter, although Von Almen never tendered one. Defense counsel disagreed with the court's characterization of the utterances as whispering: That wasn't whispering. We can bring in witnesses who heard it. The judge responded, I'm not asking for further comments, and proceeded to go off the record temporarily. When the record recommenced, defense counsel requested that the jury immediately be admonished to disregard the parental confrontation. The judge refused. Again, it does not appear that defense counsel was denied the opportunity to make a record. He stated his objection and his proposed cure. He outlined the testimony of the two witnesses whose testimony, he believed, would support his position. Once again, inasmuch as Von Almen was able to make an adequate record, his claim that he was seriously hampered by the trial court is unpersuasive. In the final instance of alleged error, defense counsel objected to the introduction of evidence which he alleged was illegally obtained. The judge ruled that the manner in which the evidence was acquired was immaterial. Defense counsel reserved the right, without waiving error, to make a further record on this issue at the conclusion of trial. The judge agreed, but defense counsel never availed himself of the opportunity to make a record. Defense counsel was able to make a record at the time of the objection and the judge did not impede any effort to extend that record at the close of the trial. Therefore, no error has been shown.