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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT