Opinion ID: 852080
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Indiana Approach to an Otherwise Waived Batson Claim

Text: As noted above, Addison made a timely Batson objection to the State's use of its peremptory challenges to remove venireperson Turner. He failed however to make any substantive rebuttal argument in response to the State's facially race-neutral reason for the removal. Instead he advances this argument for the first time on appeal. And he does so by inviting the Court to make a side-by-side comparison of similarly situated non-African American jurors who were permitted to serve. See Br. of Appellant at 14-19. [4] Rather than treating this failure as a waiver of Addison's Batson claim and thus forfeited for appellate consideration, we align ourselves with those jurisdictions that examine such claims on appeal, albeit under a more rigorous standard of review. Our fundamental error doctrine is equal to the task. See Smylie v. State, 823 N.E.2d 679, 689 n. 16 (Ind.2005) (Like the federal `plain error' doctrine, our `fundamental error' rule sometimes affords relief to claimants who did not preserve an issue before the trial court and seek to raise it for the first time on appeal.). A claim that otherwise has been waived by a defendant can be reviewed on appeal if the reviewing court determines that fundamental error occurred. See Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204, 207 (Ind.2010). The fundamental error exception is extremely narrow, and applies only when the error constitutes a blatant violation of basic principles, the harm or potential for harm is substantial, and the resulting error denies the defendant fundamental due process. Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578, 587 (Ind.2006). The error claimed must either make[] a fair trial impossible or constitute clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process. Clark v. State, 915 N.E.2d 126, 131 (Ind.2009). Further, [f]undamental error applies only when the actual or potential harm cannot be denied. Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). With these principles in mind, we proceed to examine Addison's Batson claim.