Konopasek v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that an objection for one evidentiary ground does not preserve another evidentiary ground for appeal
• explaining that an objection for one evidentiary ground does not preserve another evidentiary ground for appeal
• stating that “‘[f]ailure to object to the admission of evidence at trial normally results in waiver and precludes appellate review unless its admission constitutes fundamental error’”
• explaining that failure to object to the admission of evidence normally results in waiver precluding appellate review, and that “an objection to one question does not serve as an objection to another distinct question”
• “‘Failure to object to the admission of evidence at trial normally results in waiver and precludes appellate review unless its admission constitutes fundamental error.’”
• “‘Failure to object to the admission of evidence at trial normally results in waiver and precludes appellate review unless its admission constitutes fundamental error.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).