Antwane L. Broomfield v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 15, 2016
• Docket: 82A04-1508-CR-1190
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Mar 15 2016, 10:12 am this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Scott L. Barnhart Gregory F. Zoeller Brooke Smith Attorney General of Indiana Keffer Barnhart LLP Indianapolis, Indiana Jesse R. Drum Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Antwane L. Broomfield, March 15, 2016 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 82A04-1508-CR-1190 v. Appeal from the Vanderburgh Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Leslie C. Shively, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 82D02-1403-FC-321

Najam, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A04-1508-CR-1190 | March 15, 2016 Page 1 of 4 Statement of the Case [1] Antwane L. Broomfield appeals his convictions for carrying a handgun without

a license, as a Class C felony; operating a vehicle while privileges were

suspended, as a Class C felony; possession of cocaine, as a Class D felony;

possession of a synthetic drug, as a Class A misdemeanor; and being a habitual

offender. Broomfield raises a single issue for our review, which we restate as

follows: whether he failed to preserve his challenge on appeal to the admission

of certain evidence at trial with a proper, contemporaneous objection to the

admission of that evidence.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History [3] On March 10-11, 2014, Evansville Police Department Officers Bryan

Underwood and Jonathan Oakley stopped Broomfield and two friends while

investigating a recent home invasion. While Broomfield and the men were

stopped, another officer observed a handgun and cocaine in a vehicle the

officers had seen Broomfield driving. The officers then searched the vehicle and

also discovered a synthetic cannabinoid. The officers arrested Broomfield.

[4] The State charged Broomfield with numerous offenses. Thereafter, Broomfield

moved to suppress the State’s evidence against him on the theory that the State

had unlawfully detained him. The court held a pretrial, fact-finding hearing on

Broomfield’s motion, after which it denied the motion. At his ensuing jury

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A04-1508-CR-1190 | March 15, 2016 Page 2 of 4 trial, Broomfield did not object to the admission of the State’s evidence against

him.

[5] The jury found Broomfield guilty as charged, and Broomfield subsequently

admitted to being a habitual offender. The court entered its judgment of

conviction and sentenced Broomfield accordingly. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision [6] On appeal, Broomfield purports to challenge whether the trial court erred when

it denied his motion to suppress. But Broomfield did not seek interlocutory

review of that decision. As such, “‘the question of whether the trial court erred

in denying a motion to suppress is no longer viable.’” Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d

252, 259 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Cochran v. State, 843 N.E.2d 980, 982 (Ind. Ct.

App. 2006), trans. denied). A ruling on a pretrial motion to suppress is not

intended to serve as the final expression concerning admissibility. Id.

[7] Thus, as Indiana’s appellate courts have repeatedly recognized, “we consider

[t]his appeal as what it is: a request to review the court’s decision to admit the

evidence at trial.” Carpenter v. State, 18 N.E.2d 998, 1001 (Ind. 2014). The

general admission of evidence at trial is a matter we leave to the discretion of

the trial court. Nicholson v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1096, 1099 (Ind. 2012). We

review these determinations for abuse of that discretion and reverse only when

admission is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances

and the error affects a party’s substantial rights. Id.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A04-1508-CR-1190 | March 15, 2016 Page 3 of 4 [8] It is axiomatic that, to preserve appellate review to a challenge of the

admissibility of evidence at trial, the challenging party must make a

contemporaneous objection when the evidence is introduced at trial. Brown v.

State, 929 N.E.2d 204, 207 (Ind. 2010). This standard applies “whether or not

the appellant has filed a pretrial motion to suppress.” Id. “The purpose of this

rule is to allow the trial judge to consider the issue in light of any fresh

developments and also to correct any errors.” Id.

[9] Here, Broomfield did not object during trial to the admission of any of the

State’s evidence against him. Accordingly, he has not preserved his arguments

for appellate review. Moreover, the State relies on Broomfield’s lack of a trial

objection in its brief on appeal, and Broomfield does not assert in a Reply Brief

that this court should nonetheless review the merits of his argument under the

fundamental-error doctrine or for another reason. See, e.g., id. (holding that “an

error in ruling on a motion to exclude improperly seized evidence is not per se

fundamental error” and that “[w]e do not consider that admission of unlawfully

seized evidence ipso facto requires reversal”). Absent a timely objection, the trial

court was not required to raise sua sponte the admissibility of the evidence now

disputed for the first time on appeal. See, e.g., Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946,

974 (Ind. 2014). Accordingly, Broomfield has not preserved his only argument

on appeal for our review, and we affirm his convictions.

[10] Affirmed.

Riley, J., and May, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 82A04-1508-CR-1190 | March 15, 2016 Page 4 of 4