With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the assurance of a claim being tested by the adversary process, apply with particular force where the claim is a constitutional one. Endres v. Indiana State Police, 809 N.E.2d 320, 322 (Ind.2004) (declining to address claim of state constitutional right to religious freedom where the record and arguments were not sufficiently developed for this Court to decide important issue of Indiana constitutional law). Here, Layman and Sparks both failed to file a motion to dismiss, and they did not object to the constitutionality of the statutes at trial. As a result, Layman and Sparks may not challenge the constitutionality of these statutes for the first time on appeal, and these constitutional issues are forfeited. See Plank v. Community Hospitals of Indiana, Inc., 981 N.E.2d 49, 55 (Ind.2013) (<HOLDING>). II. Felony Murder Layman and Sparks also

A: holding that plank forfeited the opportunity for a hearing to develop his constitutional challenges where he did not preserve his claim
B: holding that appellant forfeited his complaint regarding his sentence because he did not object at trial
C: holding that defendants objection to personal jurisdiction was forfeited where defendant did not object before he entered his plea
D: holding that appellant forfeited his complaint regarding his postadjudication sentence because he did not object at trial or present his motion for new trial
A.