Lenoir v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Lenoir v. State

515 N.E.2d 529, 1987 Ind. LEXIS 1137

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 25, 1987

Docket45S00-8611-CR-953

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 515 N.E.2d 529 (Lenoir v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lenoir v. State, 515 N.E.2d 529, 1987 Ind. LEXIS 1137 (Ind. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

DICKSON, Justice.

Defendant was convicted of robbery, a class B felony. In this direct appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in finding a sufficient independent basis for his in-court identification by the victim.

The State correctly asserts that this alleged error was waived by defendant's failure to present timely objection at trial. Whitt v. State (1986), Ind., 499 N.E. 2d 748. An objection to allegedly improper testimony is required at the critical point in the trial when the evidence is offered so that it might be corrected by the trial court at that time. Hunt v. State (1983), Ind., 455 N.E.2d 307, 315. The requirement for timely objection at trial, with resulting waiver in its absence, applies notwithstanding a trial court's pre-trial ruling on admissibility of such evidence. Taylor v. State (1984), Ind., 469 N.E.2d 735; Jones v. State (1981), Ind., 425 N.E.2d 128.

Judgment affirmed.

SHEPARD, C.J., and DeBRULER, GIVAN and PIVARNIK, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DICKSON, Justice.

Defendant was convicted of robbery, a class B felony. In this direct appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in finding a sufficient independent basis for his in-court identification by the victim.

The State correctly asserts that this alleged error was waived by defendant's failure to present timely objection at trial. Whitt v. State (1986), Ind., 499 N.E. 2d 748. An objection to allegedly improper testimony is required at the critical point in the trial when the evidence is offered so that it might be corrected by the trial court at that time. Hunt v. State (1983), Ind., 455 N.E.2d 307, 315. The requirement for timely objection at trial, with resulting waiver in its absence, applies notwithstanding a trial court's pre-trial ruling on admissibility of such evidence. Taylor v. State (1984), Ind., 469 N.E.2d 735; Jones v. State (1981), Ind., 425 N.E.2d 128.

Judgment affirmed.

SHEPARD, C.J., and DeBRULER, GIVAN and PIVARNIK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

515 N.E.2d 529, 1987 Ind. LEXIS 1137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lenoir-v-state-ind-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack