ILNews

Stopped traffic snarls purse snatcher’s getaway scheme

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although the getaway car moved only a few feet after being stopped by police, a man in the passenger seat still was properly convicted of resisting law enforcement because he instructed the driver of the car to “take off.”

Antrooine Mannning tried to snatch the purse from a woman he thought “was gullible and wasn’t paying attention.” The woman fought back, however, and ran after Manning, following him to a white car driven by his girlfriend Dominique Woods. The woman threw herself on the hood of the car and hung on until finally being thrown off by Woods’ repeated accelerating, swerving and braking.

A witness to the incident got the car’s license plate number and called 911.  

When Munster police spotted the white car stopped at a traffic light, they pulled up alongside and ordered Manning and Woods to exit. At Manning’s request to “take off,” Woods kept trying to move the car forward even though the traffic ahead still was stopped.

Only when a police officer fired two shots into the car’s rear tire did Woods stop.  
 
Manning was subsequently convicted of Class B felony robbery, Class D felony resisting law enforcement and being a habitual offender.

He then filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief charging the evidence was insufficient because the short distance the car moved did not constitute resisting law enforcement.

In Antrooine A. Manning, Jr. v. State of Indiana, 45A05-13020PC-83, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Manning’s petition for post-conviction relief.

It ruled the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find that Woods knowingly, with the behest or encouragement of Manning, attempted to escape law enforcement while being aware of officers’ commands for her to stop.

Furthermore, the Court of Appeals concluded Manning’s instruction to Woods was sufficient to show he resisted law enforcement as an accomplice.

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. I have had an ongoing custody case for 6 yrs. I should have been the sole legal custodial parent but was a victim of a vindictive ex and the system biasedly supported him. He is an alcoholic and doesn't even have a license for two yrs now after his 2nd DUI. Fast frwd 6 yrs later my kids are suffering poor nutritional health, psychological issues, failing in school, have NO MD and the GAL could care less, DCS doesn't care. The child isn't getting his ADHD med he needs and will not succeed in life living this way. NO one will HELP our family.I tried for over 6 yrs. The judge called me an idiot for not knowing how to enter evidence and the last hearing was 8 mths ago. That in itself is unjust! The kids want to be with their Mother! They are being alienated from her and fed lies by their Father! I was hit in a car accident 3 yrs ago and am declared handicapped myself. Poor poor way to treat the indigent in Indiana!

  2. The Indiana DOE released the 2015-2016 school grades in Dec 2016 and my local elementary school is a "C" grade school. Look at the MCCSC boundary maps and how all of the most affluent neighborhoods have the best performance. It is no surprise that obtaining residency in the "A" school boundaries cost 1.5 to 3 times as much. As a parent I should have more options than my "C" school without needing to pay the premium to live in the affluent parts of town. If the charter were authorized by a non-religious school the plaintiffs would still be against it because it would still be taking per-pupil money from them. They are hiding behind the guise of religion as a basis for their argument when this is clearly all about money and nothing else.

  3. This is a horrible headline. The article is about challenging the ability of Grace College to serve as an authorizer. 7 Oaks is not a religiously affiliated school

  4. Congratulations to Judge Carmichael for making it to the final three! She is an outstanding Judge and the people of Indiana will benefit tremendously if/when she is chosen.

  5. The headline change to from "religious" to "religious-affiliated" is still inaccurate and terribly misleading.

ADVERTISEMENT