Court Opinion

ID: 9730125
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:01:51.458589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:04.370849
License: Public Domain

SHIELDS, Judge,
dissenting.
Although I agree in principle with the treatment of the issues in the majority opinion, I dissent because the majority erred in dealing with these issues when the state failed to make a proper record for appeal.
The rule in Indiana is, when a trial court excludes evidence on direct examination, the party who wishes to introduce the evidence must make an offer to prove in order to preserve any error. Christian Super Chevrolet Corp. v. State (1976) 169 Ind.App. 143, 346 N.E.2d 602; Indianapolis Union Railway v. Walker (1974) 162 Ind.App. 166, 318 N.E.2d 578.
In this case the state did not make any offer to prove, nor were the records which the state sought to introduce included in the record on appeal. This court is thus deprived of the opportunity to determine the merits of the trial court’s action.
I would affirm the trial court.