ILNews

Woman’s convictions did not subject her to double jeopardy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A woman who attempted to shoplift from an Indianapolis K-Mart was not subject to double jeopardy when she was convicted of resisting law enforcement and disorderly conduct. She argued the court could have based the convictions on identical facts.

Courtney Glenn was stopped as she tried to steal shirts from the store. While police officer Gary Smith escorted her from the store, she was uncooperative, attempted to pull free and was able to slip a hand out of the handcuffs. She swung the handcuffed hand at the officer, missing striking him with the handcuff by a few inches.

She was ultimately convicted of one count of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and one count of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct at a bench trial.

In Courtney Glenn v. State of Indiana, 49A04-1302-CR-79, the appellate court found sufficient evidence to support both convictions, finding Glenn’s actions to be similar to those of the defendant in Johnson v. State, 833 N.E.2d 516 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), who was convicted of resisting law enforcement. Glenn aggressively tried to pull away from the officer and refused to walk. This resistance was forcible and supports her resisting conviction.

Glenn argued that she did not try to strike the officer with her handcuffed hand, but merely was trying to show him that the handcuff had malfunctioned. But when the evidence conflicts, the appellate court must view only evidence that is favorable to the verdict, in which a reasonable fact-finder could conclude Glenn swung at the officer and could have caused serious bodily injury.

The judges also rejected Glenn’s claim that the trial court did not fully explain which facts it relied on to support each conviction, implying the court based both convictions on identical facts.

“However, we assume the trial court, at a bench trial, followed the law and applied it correctly. There was a sufficient separate basis to convict Glenn of both resisting law enforcement and disorderly conduct,” Judge Melissa May wrote.
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT