and defense counsel replied: Judge, uh, it is relevant, Mr. Delp did ask a question regarding a walking [sic] talkie as to standard equipment that uh, loss prevention officers carry at Wal-Mart. Uh, it was responded to my, ub, by uh, Mr. Bravo, the witness, that they do need to carry them and so therefore, I think it is relevant. (Id. at 264-5.) Upon sustaining the objection, the court responded, "I don't think the question addressed whether or not it was policy, I don't think Wal-Mart policy is necessarily relevant to the issues here." (Id.) For the substance of the evidence to be apparent from the context of the question, the testimony to be given must be so closely related to a relevant issue that it need not be spoken. See Bedree v. Bedrece, 747 N.E.2d 1192, 1196 (Ind.Ct.App.2001) (<HOLDING>), trans. denied. The court had made a pre-trial
recognizing that evidence regarding the high price the defendant had paid for the substance in question was relevant to show the substance was cocaine holding a proffer of testimony is required to preserve the issue of whether testimony was properly excluded by the trial judge and an appellate court will not consider error alleged in the exclusion of testimony unless the record on appeal shows fairly what the excluded testimony would have been holding the excluded testimony was relevant to whether a signature was that of a deceased party and since a statement regarding the issue was the only testimony that could be given by the witness no offer to prove was necessary because the substance of the evidence was apparent from the context of the question asked holding that a formal offer of proof was not required to challenge an evidentiary ruling because the substance of excluded testimony was apparent from the context holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case