Jefferson Jean-Baptiste v. State of Indiana ( 2017 )


Menu:
  • ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT                                      ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Suzy St. John                                                Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
    Ruth Ann Johnson                                             Attorney General of Indiana
    Marion County Public Defender Agency
    Indianapolis, IN                                             Stephen R. Creason
    Michael Gene Worden
    Deputy Attorneys General
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    ______________________________________________________________________________
    In the                                                    FILED
    Indiana Supreme Court
    Oct 03 2017, 11:39 am
    CLERK
    Indiana Supreme Court
    _________________________________                          Court of Appeals
    and Tax Court
    No. 49S02-1707-CR-00500
    JEFFERSON JEAN-BAPTISTE,
    Appellant (Defendant below),
    v.
    STATE OF INDIANA,
    Appellee (Plaintiff below).
    _________________________________
    Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, No. 49G19-1604-CM-12899
    The Honorable Rebekah F. Pierson-Treacy, Judge
    _________________________________
    On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-1608-CR-1798
    _________________________________
    October 3, 2017
    Per Curiam.
    After a bench trial in Marion Superior Court, Jefferson Jean-Baptiste was convicted of
    Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. The Court of Appeals reversed Jean-Baptiste’s
    conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence. The Court of Appeals also sua sponte addressed
    a constitutional question, and reversed for that reason as well. We granted the State’s petition to
    transfer by order dated July 27, 2017.
    We agree with the Court of Appeals that reversal is warranted because the State failed to
    present sufficient evidence to support Jean-Baptiste’s conviction. We therefore summarily affirm
    all portions of the Court of Appeals opinion except its sua sponte constitutional analysis and
    holding, which remain vacated. See Appellate Rule 58(A). In keeping with our longstanding
    principle of constitutional avoidance, we decline to address that issue. See Citimortgage v.
    Barabas, 
    975 N.E.2d 805
    , 818 (Ind. 2012).
    All Justices concur.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 49S02-1707-CR-500

Filed Date: 10/3/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/3/2017