Court Opinion

ID: 9722903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:54:40.963294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:41.558542
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
DeBruler, J.
I find that appellants’ brief contains a minimally sufficient argument in support of the contention that the trial court erroneously admitted May’s statement and therefore cannot join with the majority in its finding of waiver of that issue under Ind. R. Ap. P. 8.3(A) (7). However, with regard to the waiver of this same issue upon application of Ind. R. Tr. P. 59(G) the majority is accurate in its finding that the motion to correct errors contains no mention of the admissibility issue.
In the trial court there was a hearing on the admissibility of the statement. Here on appeal there is a minimally sufficient argument on the point in the brief. However, the motion to correct errors is silent on the issue. My opposition to the *27imposition of a waiver of a constitutional claim by us under circumstances such as these has been repeated several times, and has been rejected on each such occasion. Graham v. State, (1973) 261 Ind. 330, 303 N.E.2d 274; Finch v. State, (1975) 264 Ind. 48, 338 N.E.2d 629. I consider myself bound to follow overbroad interpretations given Rule 59(G) by the present majority, and therefore vote to affirm the conviction without considering the correctness of the trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of the statement.
Note. — Reported at 349 N.E.2d 171.