Sierra Hill v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
Oct 29 2019, 9:15 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Christopher Taylor-Price Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Marion County Public Defender Agency Attorney General
Appellate Division
Indianapolis, Indiana Courtney Staton
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Sierra Hill, October 29, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
19A-CR-1083
v. Appeal from the Marion Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Amy M. Jones,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
The Honorable David Hooper,
Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G08-1808-CM-28659
Crone, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1083 | October 29, 2019 Page 1 of 9
Case Summary
[1] Sierra Hill appeals her conviction, following a bench trial, for class A
misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. She asserts that the trial court abused
its discretion in admitting certain evidence. She also asserts that the State
presented insufficient evidence to support her conviction. Finding no abuse of
discretion and sufficient evidence, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On August 13, 2018, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officer
Nickolas Smith was dispatched to an automotive repair shop based upon a
report that a person was refusing to leave. When Officer Smith arrived, he
spoke to a manager and another employee before encountering Hill. She was
sitting in a chair in the back of the shop where it was dark. The shop was
closed at the time. Officer Smith explained to Hill that he needed to speak to
her outside because the manager “wanted her to leave” and “did not want her
there.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 7-8. Hill informed the officer that she “wasn’t going
anywhere” and that he would “have to take her to jail.” Id. 8-9. Officer Smith
told Hill a second time that he needed to speak with her outside. After Hill
again refused to move, Officer Smith approached her and “grabbed her by both
wrists, stood her up.” Id. at 9. Hill began “flailing her arms and turning
around.” Id. Officer Smith “did a leg sweep[,]” and Hill “went to the ground.”
Id. While on the ground, Hill tried to tuck her arms underneath her stomach.
Officer Smith “told her to stop resisting and give me her hands.” Id. He was
able to get a handcuff on Hill’s left hand, but she was “tucking in her right
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1083 | October 29, 2019 Page 2 of 9
hand.” Id. After Officer Smith was finally able to cuff both hands, Hill “was
pretty much like dead weight” and told the officer that he “was going to have to
drag her out.” Id. Officer Smith stood Hill up, and she dragged her feet as he
brought her outside.
[3] The State charged Hill with class A misdemeanor criminal trespass and class A
misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. A bench trial was held on April 15,
2019. After the State presented its evidence, the trial court sua sponte dismissed
the criminal trespass charge pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 41(B). After Hill
presented her evidence, the trial court found her guilty of resisting law
enforcement and sentenced her to one year of informal probation and sixteen
hours of community service. This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
Section 1 – The trial court did not abuse its discretion in
admitting certain evidence.
[4] Hill contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting certain
evidence. A trial court has broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence,
including purported hearsay. Blount v. State, 22 N.E.3d 559, 564 (Ind. 2014).
We will disturb the ruling only if it amounts to an abuse of discretion, meaning
the court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances or is a misinterpretation of the law. Id.[5] Hill claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it permitted Officer
Smith to testify, over her objection, regarding a hearsay statement made to him
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1083 | October 29, 2019 Page 3 of 9
by the shop manager. Specifically, Officer Smith testified that after he
identified himself to Hill as a police officer, he explained to her that the
manager “wanted her to leave” and that he needed to speak to her outside
because the manager “did not want her there.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 7-8. In overruling
Hill’s hearsay objection, the trial court explained that the statement would be
admitted as “course-of-investigation” testimony “for the limited purpose to
show why the officer [was] engaged in his duties.” Id.[6] Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered for “the truth of the matter
asserted,” Ind. Evidence Rule 801(c)(2), and it is generally not admissible as
evidence. Ind. Evidence Rule 802. “Whether a statement is hearsay ... will most
often hinge on the purpose for which it is offered.” Blount, 22 N.E.3d at 565
(quoting United States v. Linwood, 142 F.3d 418, 425 (7th Cir. 1998)). In Blount,
our supreme court explained the purposes and dangers of “course-of-
investigation” testimony:
Although course-of-investigation testimony may help prosecutors
give the jury some context, it is often of little consequence to the
ultimate determination of guilt or innocence. The core issue at
trial is, of course, what the defendant did (or did not do), not why
the investigator did (or did not do) something. Thus, course-of-
investigation testimony is excluded from hearsay only for a
limited purpose: to bridge gaps in the trial testimony that would
otherwise substantially confuse or mislead the jury.... Indeed,
such testimony is of little value absent a direct challenge to the
legitimacy of the investigation.... The ultimate inquiry is: Was
the out-of-court statement used primarily to show the truth of its
content, constituting inadmissible hearsay, or merely to explain
subsequent police action, excluded from hearsay?
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1083 | October 29, 2019 Page 4 of 9
Id. at 565-66 (citations and quotation marks omitted).
[7] To determine whether a statement received by a police officer engaged in an
investigation constitutes inadmissible hearsay, we conduct a three-part test. Id.
at 566. First, we determine if the testimony described an out-of-court statement
that asserts a fact susceptible of being true or false. Id. If that answer is yes, we
next determine the evidentiary purpose of the proffered statement. Id. at 567.
Specifically, we consider whether the statement is offered for a purpose other
than to prove the fact which is asserted. Id. Again, if that answer is yes, we
determine if the fact to be proven by the statement is relevant to some issue in
the case, and if there is any danger of unfair prejudice that outweighs the
probative value. Id.[8] Here, Officer Smith’s testimony regarding the manager’s out-of-court statement
that he wanted Hill to leave the property was clearly asserting a fact susceptible
of being true or false. But, the evidentiary purpose of the out-of-court statement
was not to prove that fact. That is to say, the evidentiary purpose was not to
prove that the manager wanted Hill to leave or that Hill was committing
criminal trespass. Rather, the evidentiary purpose and relevance of the
statement was to explain “why” Officer Smith, in his official capacity as a
police officer, had an encounter with Hill. Tr. Vol. 2 at 8. Indeed, the trial
court, as the trier of fact in this bench trial, gave assurances that the statement
was being admitted for that limited purpose. Id. Under the circumstances, we
are confident that the statement was considered only for its non-hearsay
purpose rather than for its truth.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1083 | October 29, 2019 Page 5 of 9
[9] We note that our courts are most concerned with the danger of unfair prejudice
when the out-of-court assertion directly implicates the defendant in the instant
crime or a crime similar to the one with which he or she is charged. See Blount,
22 N.E.3d at 566. Although Hill was initially charged with criminal trespass,
and the manager’s statement would have implicated Hill in that crime, the State
abandoned any attempt to prove that offense, and the trial court sua sponte
dismissed that charge at the conclusion of the State’s evidence. Accordingly,
we perceive no danger of unfair prejudice here. We conclude that the trial court
did not abuse its discretion in admitting the challenged evidence.
Section 2 – The State presented sufficient evidence to support
Hill’s conviction.
[10] We next address Hill’s claim that the State presented insufficient evidence to
support her conviction. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of
evidence, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. Moore v.
State, 27 N.E.3d 749, 754 (Ind. 2015). Rather, we consider only the evidence
and reasonable inferences most favorable to the judgment and will affirm the
conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Reversal is appropriate only when
reasonable persons would be unable to form inferences as to each material
element of the offense. McCray v. State, 850 N.E.2d 998, 1000 (Ind. Ct. App.
2006), trans. denied. The evidence need not “overcome every reasonable
hypothesis of innocence.” Dalton v. State, 56 N.E.3d 644, 647 (Ind. Ct. App.
2016) (quoting Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 147 (Ind. 2007)), trans. denied.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1083 | October 29, 2019 Page 6 of 9
[11] To convict Hill of resisting law enforcement as a class A misdemeanor, the
State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Hill knowingly or
intentionally forcibly resisted, obstructed, or interfered with a law enforcement
officer or a person assisting the officer while the officer was lawfully engaged in
the execution of the officer’s duties. Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1). Hill’s sole
assertion is that the State presented insufficient evidence that Officer Smith was
lawfully engaged in the execution of his duties during their encounter. 1
[12] Officer Smith testified that he identified himself as a police officer to Hill,
informed her why he had been summoned, and asked her to step outside of the
shop to speak with him. Smith refused and told Officer Smith that he would
just have to take her to jail. When Officer Smith attempted to direct Smith
outside, a struggle ensued. Hill contends that absent the manager’s “hearsay”
statement discussed above, “no substantive evidence exists that Officer Smith
was lawfully engaged in his duties” during the encounter. Reply Br. at 10.
However, as we have concluded, the manager’s statement was not hearsay, as it
was not admitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted therein. Rather, it
was properly admitted as substantive evidence as to why Officer Smith, in his
official capacity as a police officer, had an encounter with Hill. Officer Smith’s
testimony was sufficient to prove that he was lawfully engaged in the execution
of his duties at the time of the encounter.
1
Hill does not challenge the sufficiency of the State’s proof on any other element of the offense.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1083 | October 29, 2019 Page 7 of 9
[13] Hill maintains that since the State never proved that she was in fact committing
a crime (criminal trespass) by refusing to leave the shop, the State could not
prove that Officer Smith had the authority to ask her to leave or to arrest her for
refusing to do so. We agree with the State that much of Hill’s argument in this
regard appears to conflate “lawfully engaged in [the execution of the officer’s]
duties” with “lawfully arresting.” State’s Br. at 12. Regardless of whether an
arrest is lawful, a citizen cannot resist a peaceful arrest by a police officer. 2
Shoultz v. State, 735 N.E.2d 818, 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied (2001);
see also Dora v. State, 783 N.E.2d 322, 327 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (holding that
determining the lawfulness of an arrest should be decided by courts and not by
emotional citizens), trans. denied. 3 Hill is prohibited from resisting an arrest
simply because she thinks it is unlawful. The trial court reasonably found that
Hill knowingly or intentionally forcibly resisted Officer Smith while he was
lawfully engaged in the execution of his duties. The State presented sufficient
evidence to support Hill’s conviction.
2
In her reply brief, Hill claims that Officer Smith used excessive force when trying to direct her out of the
shop, and therefore he was not “lawfully” engaged in his duties. Reply Br. at 11. This argument is waived
because it was raised for the first time in a reply brief. See Jones v. State, 22 N.E.3d 877, 881 n.4 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2014) (noting that a party may not raise an argument for the first time in a reply brief).
3
The rule that a citizen cannot resist even an unlawful arrest has not been interpreted as a blanket prohibition
that criminalizes any conduct evincing resistance where the “means used” to affect an arrest are unlawful.
Alspach v. State, 755 N.E.2d 209, 211 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans denied. For example, “we have recognized an
exception where police unlawfully enter a person’s residence, determining that a greater privilege exists to
resist an unlawful entry into private premises than to resist an unlawful arrest in a public place.” Id. (citations
omitted).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1083 | October 29, 2019 Page 8 of 9
[14] Affirmed.
Baker, J., and Kirsch, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-1083 | October 29, 2019 Page 9 of 9