ILNews

Judges uphold man’s resisting law enforcement conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Finding the evidence to be sufficient to support a man’s conviction of misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction Monday. The judges also found no error in the trial court’s instructions to the jury.

Police responded to a call regarding battery on a person. Freddie Patterson and his cousin appeared intoxicated and did not have any visible injuries. Both said Patterson’s wife, Martha, struck them with her cane. While talking to the wife, Patterson became angry and got in the face of one of the officers in such a manner that the officer felt threatened. When he pushed Patterson back, Patterson charged him again. The two officers struggled to handcuff Patterson and considered using a Taser, but, instead, one officer struck Patterson with an open hand on his face. They were then able to handcuff him.

Patterson was convicted of Class A misdemeanor resisting arrest. In Freddie Patterson v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1311-CR-944, he argued that the evidence doesn’t support his conviction and that the trial court erred by giving an edited version of a jury instruction he tendered and by adding a sentence to another instruction.

The judges rejected Patterson’s claim that the officers used excessive force, thus justifying his actions. They pointed to the officer’s testimony that he felt threatened by Patterson, who was taller and heavier than the officer and that the officers wrestled with Patterson for several minutes before striking him with an open hand in order to handcuff hm.

Patterson claimed the deleted sentence from his tendered jury instruction was an abuse of discretion because none of the other instructions addressed the privilege to resist when an officer uses excessive force. But several other instructions – including the one in which a sentence was removed, adequately addressed Patterson’s right to lawfully resist if the officers used excessive force, Judge Rudolph Pyle III wrote.

Also, there was no fundamental error when the court added a sentence suggested by the state regarding forcibly resisting. The judges found the sentence helps to fully define “forcibly resists” and does not present an appellate standard of review as Patterson argued.
 

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. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT