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.