Douglas Alan Burris v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 22A05-1704-CR-809

Background

In May 2016, a traffic stop of Christopher Dowdle’s vehicle (Burris a passenger) led to an inventory search that recovered heroin, methamphetamine, marijuana, ecstasy, paraphernalia, lithium batteries, lighter fluid, tubing, and 47 pseudoephedrine pills; Burris admitted the pseudoephedrine was his. Burris was charged in Cause 1170 with multiple drug and related offenses.
In October 2016, officers encountered Burris near a residence; Burris initially gave a false name, fled on foot, and was later apprehended after a pursuit. A search of his truck found methamphetamine (in a wallet), drug paraphernalia, and a bong; Burris was charged in Cause 2190 with possession and related offenses.
The two causes were consolidated for trial. The State presented the October (2190) matters first. Two officers (Case and Comer) testified and made unsolicited references to having “prior knowledge” or prior experiences with Burris and Dowdle. Burris moved for a mistrial after one comment and the court admonished the jury to disregard it; Burris did not object to Comer’s testimony at trial.
A jury convicted Burris on multiple counts across both causes (including possession of chemical precursors with intent, possession of methamphetamine, resisting law enforcement, false informing, and visiting a common nuisance).
The trial court orally pronounced a total aggregate sentence of 2,160 days (specifying certain counts to run concurrently or consecutively). The written sentencing statement, however, mistakenly ordered some counts to run consecutively (which would have produced 2,340 days).
Burris appealed claiming: (1) admission of officers’ testimony about prior knowledge/criminal history was erroneous (fundamental error); and (2) the written sentencing statement contains a clerical error inconsistent with the oral pronouncement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of testimony referencing officers' "prior knowledge" of Burris	State: testimony explained why an officer responded and assisted; provided context for the stop	Burris: unsolicited references constituted improper character/criminal-history evidence under Evid. R. 404 and were prejudicial; requested mistrial	Not fundamental error. Court found jury admonishment cured Case's remark; Comer’s unobjected testimony waived absent fundamental-error showing, which was not met because statements were vague, explanatory, and not so prejudicial as to deny due process
Sufficiency of admonishment after Case’s comment	State: admonishment cured any defect	Burris: admonishment insufficient to cure prejudice	Held the admonishment cured the defect; Burris offered no valid reason it was insufficient
Claim of fundamental error from Comer’s unobjected testimony	State: no waiver preserved; error not fundamental	Burris: argues fundamental error exception applies due to cumulative "drumbeat" of character evidence	Court concluded error (if any) was not so blatant or prejudicial to deny due process; not fundamental error
Sentencing clerical error (oral vs written)	State: written statement inconsistent with oral pronouncement; court should correct clerical mistake	Burris: written statement mistakenly orders counts consecutively contrary to oral ruling	Court remanded to correct the clerical error to reflect the oral sentence (false informing to run concurrently), producing a 2,160-day total as orally pronounced

Key Cases Cited

Erickson v. State, 72 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (trial court has broad discretion on evidentiary rulings)
Green v. State, 587 N.E.2d 1314 (Ind. 1992) (presumption that timely jury admonishment cures evidentiary error)
Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. 2006) (standards for fundamental error doctrine)
Oldham v. State, 779 N.E.2d 1162 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (admission of character evidence that paints defendant as dangerous can be fundamental error)
Taylor v. State, 717 N.E.2d 90 (Ind. 1999) (fundamental error requires denial of fair trial)