stating that, to preserve a claim of error for Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-97 | December 22, 2025 Page 14 of 45 appellate review, an objection must be sufficiently specific so as to fully alert the trial court to the legal issue to be resolved
How later courts described this case
- stating that, to preserve a claim of error for Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CR-97 | December 22, 2025 Page 14 of 45 appellate review, an objection must be sufficiently specific so as to fully alert the trial court to the legal issue to be resolved
- explaining that "[a] mere general objection, 'or an objection on grounds other than those raised on appeal, is ineffective to preserve an issue for appellate review"
- holding that the defendant may not present grounds on appeal that were not made at trial to support an objection and that the defendant’s claim was barred
- upholding jury verdict for plaintiff on assault claim where defendant “aggressively and rapidly advanced on the plaintiff with clenched fists, piercing eyes, beet-red face, popping veins, and screaming and searing at him” then backed plaintiff up against a wall
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SULLIVAN, Justice,
concurring in result.
I agree with Justice Boehm that defendant’s pre-trial objections to the admissibility of Dr. Namie’s testimony were adequately preserved for appeal. However, I concur in the Court’s opinion because I believe that even if the Namie testimony was erroneously admitted, it was harmless error for purposes of this appeal.
As the Court’s opinion recites, two claims were presented to the jury in this case: assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress. To prove the latter claim, plaintiff was required to prove that defendant (1) engaged in “extreme and outrageous” conduct that (2) intentionally or recklessly (3) caused (4) severe emotional distress. Doe v. Methodist Hosp., 690 N.E.2d 681, 691 (Ind.1997) (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 (1965) and other cases). Plaintiff offered Namie’s testimony in an effort to establish these elements; the Namie testimony did not go to the elements of plaintiffs assault claim. But the jury acquitted defendant of intentional infliction of emotional distress. For this reason, even if the testimony was erroneously admitted, it was harmless error in respect of the judgment on the assault claim — the only claim being reviewed in this appeal.