determination, for a total sentence of ninety-five years, with ten years suspended. The sole issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the tapes of pretrial conversations Packer had with Clark during telephone calls from jail. Both Packer and the State frame the issue in this case as whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Packer's motion to suppress the tapes. However, Packer did not seek an interlocutory appeal after the denial of his motion to suppress. Rather, he proceeded with his trial and objected to the admission of the evidence at trial. Thus, the issue is more appropriately framed as whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the evidence at trial. See, e.g., Washington v. State, 784 N.E.2d 584, 587 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (<HOLDING>). A trial court has broad discretion in ruling
holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting gangrelated evidence holding the trial court had abused its discretion in admitting several photographs of a murder victims body holding that the issue was more appropriately framed as whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the evidence at trial holding that trial court was required to give full effect to supreme courts judgment and that by failing to do so the trial court abused its discretion holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact