Court Opinion

ID: 9520616
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:45:27.384915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:32.378903
License: Public Domain

GARRARD, Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the majority opinion concerning the sufficiency of the evidence. I also agree that no viable assertion of error has been presented concerning appellant's motion for discharge.
Concerning the asserted evidentiary errors it should be pointed out that appellant's argument on these issues sets forth no questions asked or objections made, nor are any objections even referred to.
It is not hypertechnicality to require that appellate argument asserting evidentiary errors disclose at minimum what specific piece of evidence is deemed objectionable and what specific and timely objection was made to its reception. In addition to the problems of waiver during the trial, cogent argument on appeal requires as much. See Indiana Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 8.8(A)(T).
I agree that any error in the introduction of whatever evidence from whatever witness concerning whatever events that may also have occurred at the time of the charged offense has been waived.