Opinion ID: 2051240
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: issues

Text: Neither do we decide the merits of this issue, as the Defendant is here basing his claim of error upon grounds that differ from those argued in the trial court. The Court proposed seventeen final instructions numbered from 7 through 23, for settlement. Defendant submitted none and announced that it had no objections to any of those proposed by the Court. Among those instructions was No. 17 as follows:  INSTRUCTION NO. 17 Evidence relevant to the issues herein may be either direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence shows the existence of a fact in question without the intervention of proof of any other fact. It may be evidence of any eye witness to the main fact, or may be documentary in character, and, if true, may immediately establish the main fact to be proved. Circumstantial, or indirect evidence, consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact to be proved may be inferred according to reason and common experience. Circumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient to prove any of the elements of the crime charged, and no greater degree of certainty is required whether the evidence be direct or circumstantial, for in either case the burden of proof must be beyond a reasonable doubt. However, where the evidence necessary to support a conviction is entirely circumstantial in character, it must be of such conclusive and persuasive force that it tends to point surely and unerringly to the guilty (sic) of the accused to any extent that it excludes every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Following discussion of the proposed instructions, the Court announced that it had previously decided to delete the fourth paragraph of No. 17, but, at that time, it was inclined to leave it in, and counsel interposed, Your Honor, I think if you're going to give this one, you'd almost have to   A lengthy discussion followed during which the Court twice asked counsel to be specific with respect to the element of the crime charged that he believed to be supported only by circumstantial evidence. Counsel's responses, for the most part were very general and unresponsive to the questions asked. Ultimately he argued that the evidence that the fire did occur and the evidence that it had been accelerated by gasoline were circumstances tending to prove that the overt act requisite to a conviction for conspiracy had been committed, to which the court properly replied that Nave's testimony was direct evidence upon that element, and concluded that there was no need for the fourth paragraph to be given because a verdict of guilty could be properly returned without reliance upon circumstantial evidence. Defendant dictated into the record an objection to the giving of the instruction, as deleted. Although he did not dictate his grounds for objection, the prior dialogue is deemed sufficient for purposes of Trial Rule 51(C) and Appellate Procedure Rule 8.3(A)(7). Now, on Appeal, Defendant argues that the inference that his mind and Nave's met upon fire, as the means Nave would employ to destroy the mobile home, is one upon which there was no direct evidence, and we agree. He may, therefore, have had a valid objection to the instruction, as given. It is clear, from the record, however, that neither the court nor Defendant had considered that such was an issue in contention. No motion for judgment on the evidence was made. It was not mentioned when the instructions were settled, despite lengthy discussions upon the Defendant's entitlement during which the court twice asked for a specific statement as to the element of the crime which Defendant believed was supported by circumstantial evidence alone; nor was it mentioned in closing arguments. Even the motion to correct errors made no claim that the objection to the instruction was as now argued. Grounds urged on Appeal may not differ from those raised at trial. Carman v. State, (1979) 272 Ind. 76, 79, 396 N.E.2d 344, 346; Jones v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 463, 467, 296 N.E.2d 407; Carman and Jones involved challenges to the admissibility of evidence, but the same logic is applicable with regard to the objection to instructions. The objection to an instruction should advise the court in what regard the instruction is improper. Whitten (Bailey) v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 407, 333 N.E.2d 86; Lund v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 428, 345 N.E.2d 826. In Hitch v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 1, 6, 284 N.E.2d 783, 786, we said: It is unrealistic to think that counsel may, by a mere suggestion of error, thrust upon the court the burden of independently exhausting the possibilities that he may [be] correct.