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. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT