ILNews

Jury not properly instructed at man's trial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a defendant's convictions of battery and resisting law enforcement, and disorderly conduct because the jury wasn't properly instructed about the man's defense of the right to reasonably resist unlawful entry into his home.

In Richard L. Barnes v. State of Indiana, No. 82A05-0910-CR-592, Richard Barnes appealed his Class A misdemeanor convictions of battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor conviction of disorderly conduct. Barnes was arrested after police responded to a 9-1-1 call from his wife that Barnes was throwing things around the apartment. When police showed up, Barnes was leaving the apartment and yelled at the officer. When the officers tried to enter his apartment, Barnes continuously told them they couldn't come in. He shoved one officer when he tried to enter the apartment, which led to a struggle and Barnes being Tased.

Before his trial, Barnes tendered a jury instruction on the right of citizens to reasonably resist unlawful entry into the citizen's home. The trial court refused to give the instruction.

But the trial court erred in refusing to give that instruction. The evidence reasonably supports the conclusion that the police officer's attempted entry into the apartment was unlawful. There weren't any exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless entry into the apartment; Barnes' wife wasn't injured or in need of aid; and the wife's statements to Barnes to cooperate didn't constitute an invitation for the officer to enter the apartment. Whether Barnes' act of shoving the officer out of the doorway of his apartment was battery or "reasonable resistance" should be up to the jury to resolve, wrote Judge Paul Mathias. Barnes is entitled to a new trial on the battery and resisting law enforcement charges.

The appellate court also ruled that Barnes' speech when he was yelling at the officer was political. He was commenting on the conduct of an official acting under the color of the law, and his speech was protected. The state failed to prove Barnes' political expression rose to the level of disorderly conduct, wrote the judge.

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. Judge Roger B. Cosbey is unethical and bias toward African American who seeks justice in Title VII claims. He disrespected and used his authority to attempt to intimidate me into taking an unfair settlement and when I refused he proceeded to get my case dismissed and to deny me my Constitutional and Civil Rights. He disobeying several rules of law; specifically, by ruling on summary judgment motions against the Fed. R. Civ. P., without authority of Judge William C. Lee, without consent of the attorneys, and with conspiracy to commit “fraud on the court,” as he conspired with my former attorney. He proved to me that he is bias, unethical, unfair and unfit to be reappointed. In my opinion, he should be disbarred in 2013, for committing fraud on the court, which would make him ineligible for reinstatement in 2014. See docket 3:07 cv 629 where he rules on dispositive motions, knowing magistrates are not vested with that power (especially without consent), grants the defendant an unconscionable number of extensions, accepts my former attorney request for extension for dispositive motion knowing he was working with the opposition, and unbelievably grants the defendant another extension after he requested an extension after he missed the deadline. I know another attorney filed charges against him for bias in race discrimination case(s). I know what he did in my case before he voluntarily recused himself, I just do not know how many other innocent people have been stripped of their rights because of him. I say shame on him and no more of the same.

  2. they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.

  3. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  4. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  5. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

ADVERTISEMENT