ILNews

COA affirms resisting police conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The Indiana Court of Appeals was hesitant to rely on an Indiana Supreme Court case’s definition of “forcibly resist” because that language doesn’t appear to adequately describe the meaning of the phrase as it has been recently applied.

In Jose Lopez v. State of Indiana, No. 49A04-0908-CR-464, Jose Lopez appealed his Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement conviction, arguing the evidence of his case showed he was standing his ground and the evidence is insufficient to show he “forcibly” resisted the officers’ attempts to handcuff him.

Two Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officers responded to a domestic disturbance call at an apartment where they found Lopez. Lopez didn’t want to answer the officers’ questions, repeatedly refused to give his name, and when they tried to handcuff him, he resisted. Lopez crossed his arms, pulled away, and continued to refuse to give his hands. He was stunned by a Taser and later put his arms behind his back to be handcuffed.

The COA looked to its own caselaw as well as that from the Supreme Court, including Spangler v. State, 607 N.E.2d 720, 723 (Ind. 1993), and Johnson v. State, 833 N.E.2d 516 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). In Spangler, the justices ruled someone 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.” In Johnson, the panel noted “until we are instructed otherwise by our Supreme Court, we see no reason to apply what appears to be an overly strict definition of forcibly resist.”

Then, in Graham v. State, 903 N.E.2d 963 (Ind. 2009), the high court approved of the language used in Spangler to define “forcibly resist,” while simultaneously approving the holding in Johnson.

“Although the Graham court acknowledged that that the resistance described in Johnson was “modest,” … the Graham court apparently overlooked the Johnson court’s explicit acknowledgement that it was modifying the language of Spangler,” wrote Judge Terry Crone. “Accordingly, we are somewhat hesitant to rely on Spangler’s strong language because it does not appear to adequately describe the meaning of “forcibly resist” as it has more recently been applied.”

But the Court of Appeals found Lopez’s case to be similar to that in Johnson in which the court found sufficient evidence of “forcibly” resisting law enforcement when the defendant turned away and stiffened up.

Lopez did more than passively resist arrest. If the officers couldn’t pull his arms out from under him, it is reasonable to infer that he was forcibly resisting their efforts rather than remaining entirely passive. But Judge Crone also noted the courts can't rely on the amount of force law enforcement uses to subdue a defendant to determine if someone “forcibly resists” because that could lead to law enforcement using more excessive force.

 

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. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT