ILNews

Woman’s convictions did not subject her to double jeopardy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A woman who attempted to shoplift from an Indianapolis K-Mart was not subject to double jeopardy when she was convicted of resisting law enforcement and disorderly conduct. She argued the court could have based the convictions on identical facts.

Courtney Glenn was stopped as she tried to steal shirts from the store. While police officer Gary Smith escorted her from the store, she was uncooperative, attempted to pull free and was able to slip a hand out of the handcuffs. She swung the handcuffed hand at the officer, missing striking him with the handcuff by a few inches.

She was ultimately convicted of one count of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and one count of Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct at a bench trial.

In Courtney Glenn v. State of Indiana, 49A04-1302-CR-79, the appellate court found sufficient evidence to support both convictions, finding Glenn’s actions to be similar to those of the defendant in Johnson v. State, 833 N.E.2d 516 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), who was convicted of resisting law enforcement. Glenn aggressively tried to pull away from the officer and refused to walk. This resistance was forcible and supports her resisting conviction.

Glenn argued that she did not try to strike the officer with her handcuffed hand, but merely was trying to show him that the handcuff had malfunctioned. But when the evidence conflicts, the appellate court must view only evidence that is favorable to the verdict, in which a reasonable fact-finder could conclude Glenn swung at the officer and could have caused serious bodily injury.

The judges also rejected Glenn’s claim that the trial court did not fully explain which facts it relied on to support each conviction, implying the court based both convictions on identical facts.

“However, we assume the trial court, at a bench trial, followed the law and applied it correctly. There was a sufficient separate basis to convict Glenn of both resisting law enforcement and disorderly conduct,” Judge Melissa May wrote.
 

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT