ILNews

Court: amended charges not allowed

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals reinstated one conviction and reversed two others for a man charged with resisting law enforcement, auto theft, and battery.

At issue in Donyea Fowler v. State of Indiana, No. 71A05-0704-CR-200, is whether the trial court properly reversed Fowler's conviction of resisting law enforcement. Fowler also appealed his convictions of auto theft and battery, arguing the charges were added after the time allowed by Indiana statutes.

Police officers from several departments showed up to the home where Fowler lived with his mother in South Bend. Police spoke first with Fowler's mother and told them they were there to arrest Fowler on a felony warrant. When Fowler entered the room and provided a false name to police, Fowler's mother told him to go into a bedroom and ignore the police officers.

Fowler ran into a back bedroom and tried to leave through a window, but a police officer was waiting outside. Fowler jumped back into the room and slammed the window down on the police officer's arm.

Fowler escaped through another bedroom window, stole a vehicle, and was later arrested for resisting law enforcement as a Class D felony. The trial court never set an omnibus date at the initial hearing in May 2005.

The state filed a motion nearly a year later to amend the original charging information to include battery and auto theft, both Class D felonies. Fowler objected, but the trial court amended the charging information and set an omnibus date for Nov. 16, 2006, more than a year after he was originally arrested for resisting law enforcement.

A jury convicted Fowler on all three counts, but the trial court granted Fowler's motion for judgment on the evidence and reversed his conviction for resisting law enforcement.

The appellate court reversed Fowler's convictions of auto theft and battery, finding the amended charges were not filed within the timeframe required by Indiana statute. Omnibus dates must be set by the judicial officer at the initial hearing between 45 and 75 days after the initial hearing. Indiana Code at the time of Fowler's arrest stated that amended matters of substance may be added up to 30 days before the omnibus date.

Fowler's omnibus date should have been held sometime between early July and mid-August 2005, according to Indiana statute, and amended charges had to be filed 30 days prior to that. Since the trial court erred in permitting the amendments, Fowler's convictions for auto theft and battery are reversed, Judge Carr Darden wrote.

The state appealed the trial court's reversal of Fowler's conviction of resisting law enforcement. The trial court stated it granted the motion because no evidence was presented to demonstrate the officers ordered Fowler to stop, however, the appellate court found sufficient evidence to uphold the conviction. To be charged with resisting law enforcement, a person has to "knowingly or intentionally flee from a law enforcement officer after the officer has ... identified himself or herself and ordered the person to stop," but that order does not have to be an audible order of stop, wrote Judge Darden.

The order to stop can be given through visual indicators, which happened in this case. The law enforcement officers were easily identified as such and were there to arrest Fowler. After he went into the back bedroom, several officers ordered him to come back. In addition, once Fowler tried to leave through the bedroom window, he slammed the window down on a police officer's arm to get away.

Because of this evidence, the appellate court determined the lower court had erred in granting Fowler's motion for judgment on the evidence, and his conviction of resisting law enforcement is reinstated.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT