Jorge Navarro v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)

• Court: Indiana Court of Appeals
• Decided: December 31, 2015
• Docket: 71A03-1506-CR-587
• Status: Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 31 2015, 8:57 am

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.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Donald J. Berger Gregory F. Zoeller South Bend, Indiana Attorney General

Tyler G. Banks Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jorge Navarro, December 31, 2015 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 71A03-1506-CR-587 v. Appeal from the St. Joseph Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Elizabeth C. Appellee-Plaintiff Hurley Trial Court Cause No. 71D08-1409-F6-184

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1506-CR-587 | December 31, 2015 Page 1 of 5 Case Summary [1] Jorge Navarro refused to exit his car and fled from three police officers who

pursued him with activated lights and sirens at speeds of ninety miles per hour.

At his trial for resisting law enforcement, Navarro testified that he knew police

officers were pursuing him. He now argues that there is insufficient evidence

that he knew he was fleeing from a police officer. However, the evidence

presented at trial, including Navarro’s testimony, is sufficient to support his

conviction.

Facts and Procedural History [2] At approximately 3:00 a.m. on September 20, 2014, South Bend Police

Department Officer (SBPD) Joseph Carey, who was wearing his police uniform

and driving a marked police car, was dispatched to investigate the report of a

loud noise. Officer Carey noticed a silver car speeding through a residential

neighborhood. The officer then noticed that the car had stopped in the middle

of the street and was backing up toward the officer’s car. When the silver car

stopped, Officer Carey noticed that its front end was damaged and smoke was

coming out of the engine or the front tire. Officer Carey asked the driver,

Navarro, if he was okay. Navarro asked the officer if he wanted to race.

[3] Officer Carey turned on his car’s overhead lights and dashboard camera and

approached Navarro’s car. As he and Navarro were talking, Navarro reached

around the center console area. Concerned for his safety, Officer Carey radioed

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1506-CR-587 | December 31, 2015 Page 2 of 5 for back-up assistance. The officer also asked Navarro, who appeared

intoxicated, to exit his car. Navarro began revving his engine and refused to

comply with the Officer Carey’s request. SBPD Officer Devon Johnson arrived

at the scene, activated the lights on his police car, and also ordered Navarro to

exit his car. SBPD Officer Anuar Velazquez arrived at the scene shortly

thereafter, and the three officers attempted to remove Navarro from the car.

When they were unsuccessful, Officer Carey deployed his Taser. Navarro put

his car in gear and fled with the three officers in pursuit with activated lights

and sirens. SBPD Officer Greg Howard eventually joined in the pursuit, which

reached speeds of ninety miles per hour.

[4] As his tires began to smoke, Navarro struck a curb, exited his vehicle, and

threw himself on the ground. He was arrested and charged with resisting law

enforcement with a vehicle. At trial, Navarro testified that he knew the officers

were pursuing him because of the lights and sirens behind him. He also

admitted that “driving away from the police was a really bad choice.” Tr. p.

94. A jury convicted Navarro as charged, and he appeals his conviction.

Discussion and Decision [5] Navarro’s sole argument is that there is insufficient evidence to support his

conviction. On a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not

reweigh the evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses. Bell v. State, 31

N.E.3d 495, 499 (Ind. 2015). We look to the evidence and reasonable

inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. If there is probative evidence from which

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1506-CR-587 | December 31, 2015 Page 3 of 5 a reasonable fact-finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt, we will affirm. Id.

[6] In order to convict Navarro of resisting law enforcement with a car, the State

had to prove that he knowingly or intentionally fled from a law enforcement

officer after the officer identified himself by visible or audible means, including

operation of the officer’s siren or emergency lights, and ordered Navarro to

stop. See Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a). The offense is a Level 6 felony if the

person, while committing the offense, operates a vehicle in a manner that

creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person. I.C. § 34-44.1-3-

1(b). To be convicted for resisting law enforcement, the evidence must show

that the defendant knew or had reason to know that the person he resisted was

a police officer. Mason v. State, 944 N.E.2d 68, 71 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans.

denied.

[7] Here, Navarro’s sole contention is that there is insufficient evidence that

Navarro “kn[e]w that it was a police officer who ordered him to stop.”

Appellant’s Br. p. 5. However, our review of the evidence reveals that Officer

Carey, the first officer to approach Navarro’s car, was wearing a uniform and

driving a marked police car. During his initial conversation with Navarro, the

officer activated his emergency lights. Two other officers arrived at the scene in

marked cars with activated emergency lights before Navarro fled. In addition,

Navarro admitted at trial that he knew police officers were pursuing him

because of the lights and sirens behind him as well as the conflict he had with

the officers before he fled. This is sufficient evidence to prove that Navarro

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1506-CR-587 | December 31, 2015 Page 4 of 5 knew that it was a police officer who ordered him to stop and to support his

conviction of resisting law enforcement.

[8] Affirmed.

Bailey, J., and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1506-CR-587 | December 31, 2015 Page 5 of 5