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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT