ILNews

Judges analyze 'use' of body armor for first time

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals interpreted the elements of unlawful use of body armor for the first time in a defendant’s appeal of his convictions following his attempt to flee from police.

French Mason appealed his convictions of Class D felonies resisting law enforcement and unlawful use of body armor. Police responded to a burglary in progress report at an Indianapolis apartment complex and began searching for the suspect or suspects. The police saw two men lying in the backseat of a car, identified themselves as police officers, and ordered the men out of the car.

Mason, one of the men in the car, got into the front seat and drove the car toward an officer. After police shot at it a few times, the other passenger got out after the car stopped and he surrendered. Mason kept trying to drive the car, crashing it several times. Police eventually used a Taser on him and took him into custody. Police discovered he was wearing a bullet proof vest while he was being checked out for injuries. Mason claimed to be wearing it because he was trying to sell it to someone in the apartment complex that night.

He was convicted of three counts of resisting law enforcement, which were merged, and one conviction of unlawful use of body armor.

In French C. Mason v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1005-CR-475, the judges affirmed Mason’s conviction of resisting law enforcement – elevated to a Class D felony because he used a vehicle to resist. There was sufficient evidence that Mason knew the men were police officers.

On this challenge to his conviction of unlawful use of body armor, the judges had no caselaw on which to rely. Only one previous case, Haggard v. State, 771 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), discusses the same crime, but doesn’t clarify what constitutes “use” of body armor.

The judges believed there to be two possible interpretations of “use” under the statute defining unlawful use of body armor: that merely wearing body armor constitutes use; or that in order to “use” body armor, one must expect it to afford reasonable protection during the commission of a felony.

Using the definition of “use” as provided in the Webster’s II New College Dictionary, they chose the interpretation that a defendant must “knowingly or intentionally” use body armor as protection in the course of a felony.

“Here, Mason does not dispute that he knowingly or intentionally wore body armor, but he does dispute that he knowingly or intentionally wore it as protection against law enforcement,” wrote Judge Patricia Riley. “We cannot agree with this assertion, however. We have previously held that ‘intent is a mental function and without a confession, it must be determined from a consideration of the conduct, and the natural consequences of the conduct.’ Accordingly, intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence.”

They found sufficient evidence to show Mason intended to wear the body armor to protect him in the commission of resisting law enforcement.

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