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

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT