Hassell L. Burden v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 89A05-1704-CR-964

At ~12:30 a.m. on July 11, 2015, Richmond police Officer Andrew McClain observed Hassell L. Burden walking in a high-crime area; Burden behaved furtively, moved between houses, and wore long sleeves in hot weather.
McClain activated emergency lights and used his PA; after the speaker cracked, Burden ran. McClain pursued on foot, observed Burden discard items, tased and arrested him, and recovered items thrown during the flight and items from Burden’s pockets at scene and at the jail (including baggies of cocaine and heroin, digital scales, large cash).
Burden was charged with possession with intent to deal (Level 5) and two counts of resisting law enforcement (Class A misdemeanors). He filed motions to suppress challenging the stop and seizure; the trial court denied suppression.
At trial Burden initially said “no objection” when the State offered two baggies (later lab-tested as cocaine and heroin). Later he sought to preserve suppression objections for appeal; the court noted and overruled, but found the earlier failure to contemporaneously object waived some issues.
Jury convicted Burden of the lesser-included possession offense (Level 6) and one count of resisting; court sentenced him to concurrent terms. Burden appealed arguing the stop and admission of seized items were unconstitutional and that related testimony was inadmissible.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Burden)	Held
Were Exhibits 1 & 3 (baggies found at scene) admissible despite suppression ruling?	Evidence was admissible; items properly admitted at trial.	Burden argued the stop/seizure was unconstitutional and these items should be suppressed.	Waived: Burden expressly said “No objection” at admission, so appellate challenge is forfeited.
Were Exhibits 2, 6, 7 (baggie found at jail, scale, money) improperly admitted?	Admission was proper or any error harmless because independent evidence (Exhibits 1 & 3) proved guilt.	Contested admission based on unconstitutional stop/seizure.	Any error harmless: convictions supported by substantial independent evidence.
Was Officer McClain’s testimony re: flight admissible to support resisting conviction?	Testimony describing flight and identification of officer relevant and admissible.	Burden argued flight testimony should be excluded as fruit of an unconstitutional stop.	Waived: no contemporaneous objection; Burden did not raise fundamental-error claim.
Did Burden preserve suppression and admissibility issues for appeal by later motion/continuing objection?	Court treated late objections as noted but untimely; prior failures to object control preservation.	Burden attempted to create a record for appeal by raising objections after evidence was admitted.	Not preserved: Indiana requires contemporaneous objections to preserve; late raising was insufficient.

Guilmette v. State, 14 N.E.3d 38 (Ind. 2014) (admissibility ordinarily reviewed for abuse of discretion; Fourth Amendment issues reviewed de novo)
Jacobs v. State, 76 N.E.3d 846 (Ind. 2017) (reiterating standard distinguishing appellate review of admissibility and constitutional search/seizure questions)
Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. 2010) (contemporaneous objection at trial required to preserve suppression-related evidentiary issues on appeal)
Dilts v. State, 49 N.E.3d 617 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (an objection made immediately before or after admission does not preserve the issue if not contemporaneous)
Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. 2012) (harmless-error framework for improperly admitted evidence; examine probable impact on factfinder)
Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039 (Ind. 2011) (errors in evidence admission disregarded unless they affect substantial rights)
Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670 (Ind. 2013) (doctrine limiting availability of fundamental-error review)