D.C. v. K.W. (mem. dec.), 53A01-1703-PO-595

K.W. petitioned for an Order for Protection (OFP) alleging domestic/family violence and stalking by D.C.; an ex parte OFP issued December 12, 2016.
D.C. objected and requested a hearing; a full hearing occurred on February 15, 2017, with both parties present and D.C. appearing pro se.
K.W. testified in detail about alleged abusive, threatening, and stalking conduct and called two additional witnesses.
After K.W.’s testimony the trial judge announced he would forego live cross-examination by D.C. and invited D.C. to make a statement later; D.C. twice responded “okay” and did not object.
D.C. later expressed a desire to ask K.W. questions, but again accepted the court’s procedure and instead testified in narrative form; the trial court issued a protective order for K.W.
On appeal D.C. argued the trial court denied him his right to cross-examine K.W.; the Court of Appeals held the issue was waived for failure to object at trial and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by denying D.C. opportunity to cross-examine K.W.	K.W.: procedure chosen by court was appropriate and no reversible error.	D.C.: court prevented him from personally cross-examining K.W., violating his rights.	Waived — D.C. failed to object when the court announced the procedure and twice assented, so issue not preserved.

Blaize v. State, 51 N.E.3d 97 (Ind. 2016) (failure to object waives error on appeal)
Sampson v. State, 38 N.E.3d 985 (Ind. 2015) (same principle regarding waiver)
GKC Ind. Theatres, Inc. v. Elk Retail Investors, LLC, 764 N.E.2d 647 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (appellate courts review law and sufficiency; trial courts must be given opportunity to rule first)
Whiteco Indus., Inc. v. Nickolick, 549 N.E.2d 396 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (trial court authority to hear and weigh evidence and judge witness credibility)
Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670 (Ind. 2013) (fundamental error doctrine inapplicable where party affirmatively assented to procedure)