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. 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