Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited Aug 20 2014, 9:32 am 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:
SUZY ST. JOHN GREGORY F. ZOELLER Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
JUSTIN F. ROEBEL Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
SIMONE SMITH, ) ) Appellant-Defendant, ) ) vs. ) No. 49A02-1401-CR-21 ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Kimberly J. Brown, Judge Cause No. 49F07-1306-CM-38686
August 20, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BARNES, Judge Case Summary
Simone Smith appeals her conviction for Class A misdemeanor resisting law
enforcement. We affirm.
Issue
Smith raises one issue, which we restate as whether the evidence is sufficient to
sustain her conviction.
Facts
On June 12, 2013, Officer Vincent Stewart of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police
Department was on patrol when he saw a maroon Hyundai with heavily tinted windows.
Officer Stewart was unable to see the vehicle’s occupants because of the tinting, and he
initiated a traffic stop. Smith was the driver of the vehicle, a male was in the passenger
seat, and Smith’s infant was in the backseat. Officer Stewart asked Smith for her license
and registration, but she ignored him and immediately made a call on her cell phone.
Smith eventually identified herself, and Officer Stewart learned that Smith was driving
with an expired learner’s permit. At that time, Officers Ryan Gootee and Thomas White
arrived to assist Officer Stewart. When Officer Stewart explained to Smith that he would
be impounding the vehicle and issuing a summons to her, Smith became “agitated” and
said, “this [is] some bulls**t.” Tr. p. 15. Officer Stewart asked her to sign the summons,
and Smith “snatched” the pen out of his hand. Id. at 16. Officer Gootee described Smith
as “very hostile,” using “vulgar” language, and “very uncooperative.” Id. at 38.
Officer Stewart told Smith that she could retrieve her personal items from the
vehicle. Smith continued removing her possessions until the tow truck driver arrived. At
2 that time, Officer Stewart told Smith that she needed to get out of the vehicle. Smith
continued to say, “this is f***ked up and this is bulls**t,” and to use other “foul
language.” Id. at 17, 19. After Officer Stewart told her repeatedly to exit the vehicle,
Officer Stewart and Officer Gootee approached Smith to remove her from the vehicle.
Officer Stewart tried to grab her wrist, but Smith “immediately yanked back very
forcefully.” Id. at 19. Officer Stewart again tried to grab Smith’s wrist, but Smith
“grabbed away” and scratched Officer Stewart hard enough to cause bleeding. Id.
Officer Gootee then tried to grab Smith, and Smith “squared up” and clinched her fists.
Id. at 20. The officers believed that Smith was getting ready to fight them. Officer
Stewart told Smith not to resist, used his taser on her, and arrested her.
The State charged Smith with Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement for
“knowingly or intentionally forcibly resist[ing], obstruct[ing] or interfere[ing]” with the
officers while the officers were lawfully engaged in their duties. App. p. 18. The State
also charged Smith with Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended and Class C
misdemeanor operating a vehicle having never received a license. After a bench trial, the
trial court found Smith guilty as charged and sentenced her to an aggregate sentence of
365 days suspended to probation. Smith now appeals.
Analysis
Smith argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain her conviction for Class A
misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.1 When reviewing the sufficiency of the
1 Smith does not challenge her other convictions.
3 evidence needed to support a criminal conviction, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge
witness credibility. Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009). “We consider
only the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences that can be
drawn from such evidence.” Id. We will affirm if there is substantial evidence of
probative value such that a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded the defendant
was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
At the time of Smith’s arrest, Indiana Code Section 35-44.1-3-1(a), which
governed the offense of resisting law enforcement, provided: “A person who knowingly
or intentionally . . . forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with a law enforcement officer
or a person assisting the officer while the officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of
the officer’s duties . . . commits resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor.”2
Smith argues that the evidence is insufficient to establish forcible resistance.
Our supreme court has held that “one ‘forcibly resists’ law enforcement when
strong, powerful, violent means are used to evade a law enforcement official’s rightful
exercise of his or her duties.” Walker v. State, 998 N.E.2d 724, 726-27 (Ind. 2013)
(citing Spangler v. State, 607 N.E.2d 720, 723 (Ind. 1993)). “[A]ny action to resist must
be done with force in order to violate this statute. It is error as a matter of law to
conclude that ‘forcibly resists’ includes all actions that are not passive.” Id. at 727 (citing
Spangler, 607 N.E.2d at 724). However, the “force involved need not rise to the level of
mayhem.’” Id. (quoting Graham v. State, 903 N.E.2d 963, 965 (Ind. 2009)). “In fact,
2 The statute was later amended. See P.L.172-2013, § 11 (eff. July 1, 2013), P.L.158-2013, § 509 (eff. July 1, 2014), and P.L.168-2014, § 80 (eff. July 1, 2014). 4 even a very ‘modest level of resistance’ might support the offense.” Id. (quoting
Graham, 903 N.E.2d at 966).
Whether a defendant’s actions are “forcible” is an issue that is “necessarily fact-
sensitive.” Id. at 727.
[N]ot every passive—or even active—response to a police officer constitutes the offense of resisting law enforcement, even when that response compels the officer to use force. Instead, a person “forcibly” resists, obstructs, or interferes with a police officer when he or she uses strong, powerful, violent means to impede an officer in the lawful execution of his or her duties. But this should not be understood as requiring an overwhelming or extreme level of force. The element may be satisfied with even a modest exertion of strength, power, or violence. Moreover, the statute does not require commission of a battery on the officer or actual physical contact—whether initiated by the officer or the defendant. It also contemplates punishment for the active threat of such strength, power, or violence when that threat impedes the officer’s ability to lawfully execute his or her duties.
Id.
In support of her argument, Smith relies on our supreme court’s opinion in K.W.
v. State, 984 N.E.2d 610 (Ind. 2013).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited Aug 20 2014, 9:32 am 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:
SUZY ST. JOHN GREGORY F. ZOELLER Indianapolis, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
JUSTIN F. ROEBEL Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
SIMONE SMITH, ) ) Appellant-Defendant, ) ) vs. ) No. 49A02-1401-CR-21 ) STATE OF INDIANA, ) ) Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Kimberly J. Brown, Judge Cause No. 49F07-1306-CM-38686
August 20, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
BARNES, Judge Case Summary
Simone Smith appeals her conviction for Class A misdemeanor resisting law
enforcement. We affirm.
Issue
Smith raises one issue, which we restate as whether the evidence is sufficient to
sustain her conviction.
Facts
On June 12, 2013, Officer Vincent Stewart of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police
Department was on patrol when he saw a maroon Hyundai with heavily tinted windows.
Officer Stewart was unable to see the vehicle’s occupants because of the tinting, and he
initiated a traffic stop. Smith was the driver of the vehicle, a male was in the passenger
seat, and Smith’s infant was in the backseat. Officer Stewart asked Smith for her license
and registration, but she ignored him and immediately made a call on her cell phone.
Smith eventually identified herself, and Officer Stewart learned that Smith was driving
with an expired learner’s permit. At that time, Officers Ryan Gootee and Thomas White
arrived to assist Officer Stewart. When Officer Stewart explained to Smith that he would
be impounding the vehicle and issuing a summons to her, Smith became “agitated” and
said, “this [is] some bulls**t.” Tr. p. 15. Officer Stewart asked her to sign the summons,
and Smith “snatched” the pen out of his hand. Id. at 16. Officer Gootee described Smith
as “very hostile,” using “vulgar” language, and “very uncooperative.” Id. at 38.
Officer Stewart told Smith that she could retrieve her personal items from the
vehicle. Smith continued removing her possessions until the tow truck driver arrived. At
2 that time, Officer Stewart told Smith that she needed to get out of the vehicle. Smith
continued to say, “this is f***ked up and this is bulls**t,” and to use other “foul
language.” Id. at 17, 19. After Officer Stewart told her repeatedly to exit the vehicle,
Officer Stewart and Officer Gootee approached Smith to remove her from the vehicle.
Officer Stewart tried to grab her wrist, but Smith “immediately yanked back very
forcefully.” Id. at 19. Officer Stewart again tried to grab Smith’s wrist, but Smith
“grabbed away” and scratched Officer Stewart hard enough to cause bleeding. Id.
Officer Gootee then tried to grab Smith, and Smith “squared up” and clinched her fists.
Id. at 20. The officers believed that Smith was getting ready to fight them. Officer
Stewart told Smith not to resist, used his taser on her, and arrested her.
The State charged Smith with Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement for
“knowingly or intentionally forcibly resist[ing], obstruct[ing] or interfere[ing]” with the
officers while the officers were lawfully engaged in their duties. App. p. 18. The State
also charged Smith with Class A misdemeanor driving while suspended and Class C
misdemeanor operating a vehicle having never received a license. After a bench trial, the
trial court found Smith guilty as charged and sentenced her to an aggregate sentence of
365 days suspended to probation. Smith now appeals.
Analysis
Smith argues that the evidence is insufficient to sustain her conviction for Class A
misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.1 When reviewing the sufficiency of the
1 Smith does not challenge her other convictions.
3 evidence needed to support a criminal conviction, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge
witness credibility. Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009). “We consider
only the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences that can be
drawn from such evidence.” Id. We will affirm if there is substantial evidence of
probative value such that a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded the defendant
was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
At the time of Smith’s arrest, Indiana Code Section 35-44.1-3-1(a), which
governed the offense of resisting law enforcement, provided: “A person who knowingly
or intentionally . . . forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with a law enforcement officer
or a person assisting the officer while the officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of
the officer’s duties . . . commits resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor.”2
Smith argues that the evidence is insufficient to establish forcible resistance.
Our supreme court has held that “one ‘forcibly resists’ law enforcement when
strong, powerful, violent means are used to evade a law enforcement official’s rightful
exercise of his or her duties.” Walker v. State, 998 N.E.2d 724, 726-27 (Ind. 2013)
(citing Spangler v. State, 607 N.E.2d 720, 723 (Ind. 1993)). “[A]ny action to resist must
be done with force in order to violate this statute. It is error as a matter of law to
conclude that ‘forcibly resists’ includes all actions that are not passive.” Id. at 727 (citing
Spangler, 607 N.E.2d at 724). However, the “force involved need not rise to the level of
mayhem.’” Id. (quoting Graham v. State, 903 N.E.2d 963, 965 (Ind. 2009)). “In fact,
2 The statute was later amended. See P.L.172-2013, § 11 (eff. July 1, 2013), P.L.158-2013, § 509 (eff. July 1, 2014), and P.L.168-2014, § 80 (eff. July 1, 2014). 4 even a very ‘modest level of resistance’ might support the offense.” Id. (quoting
Graham, 903 N.E.2d at 966).
Whether a defendant’s actions are “forcible” is an issue that is “necessarily fact-
sensitive.” Id. at 727.
[N]ot every passive—or even active—response to a police officer constitutes the offense of resisting law enforcement, even when that response compels the officer to use force. Instead, a person “forcibly” resists, obstructs, or interferes with a police officer when he or she uses strong, powerful, violent means to impede an officer in the lawful execution of his or her duties. But this should not be understood as requiring an overwhelming or extreme level of force. The element may be satisfied with even a modest exertion of strength, power, or violence. Moreover, the statute does not require commission of a battery on the officer or actual physical contact—whether initiated by the officer or the defendant. It also contemplates punishment for the active threat of such strength, power, or violence when that threat impedes the officer’s ability to lawfully execute his or her duties.
Id.
In support of her argument, Smith relies on our supreme court’s opinion in K.W.
v. State, 984 N.E.2d 610 (Ind. 2013). In K.W., our supreme court found that the evidence
was insufficient to show forcible resistance where an officer attempted to handcuff a
juvenile and the juvenile “turned to walk away, pulling against [the officer’s] grasp on his
wrist.” K.W., 984 N.E.2d at 611. On the other hand, the State relies on J.S. v. State, 843
N.E.2d 1013 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), trans. denied, and Lopez v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1090
(Ind. Ct. App. 2010), trans. denied. In J.S., an officer was attempting to separate two
juveniles in a fight when one juvenile tried to pull away and jerk away from him. As he
5 tried to handcuff her, the juvenile kept “flailing her arms,” “squirming her body,” and
“making it impossible for him to hold her hands.” J.S., 843 N.E.2d at 1015. We held
that the evidence was sufficient to sustain her conviction for resisting law enforcement.
In Lopez, as officers tried to handcuff the defendant, he tried pulling away, refused to put
his hands behind his back, and was “lying on his hands” to prevent the officers from
handcuffing him. Lopez, 926 N.E.2d at 1091. We held that the evidence was sufficient
to show forcible resistance.
We also note that, in Walker, 998 N.E.2d at 726, the defendant did not obey an
officer’s order to stop fighting. Instead, he turned toward the officer and started walking
toward him with his fists clenched in an aggressive manner and raised at one point. The
defendant ignored repeated warnings and orders and got close to the officer. As a result,
the officer used his taser on the defendant. Our supreme court held that this evidence was
sufficient to show forcible resistance, obstruction, or interference with the officer.
We conclude that Smith’s conduct is more like that in Walker, J.S., and Lopez,
than the conduct in K.W. In K.W., the juvenile merely pulled away from the officer’s
grasp. Here, Smith repeatedly refused Officer Stewart’s orders to get out of the vehicle.
When Officer Stewart tried to grab her wrist, she repeatedly yanked back forcefully. At
one point, she scratched the officer hard enough to draw blood. Then, she “squared up”
and clinched her fists, leading the officers to believe that she was going to fight them. Tr.
p. 20. The officers then used a taser on her. This conduct is more than merely pulling
away from the officer’s grasp. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient to show that
Smith forcibly resisted.
6 Conclusion
The evidence is sufficient to sustain Smith’s conviction for Class A misdemeanor
resisting law enforcement. We affirm.
Affirmed.
BRADFORD, J., and BROWN, J., concur.