Meranda White v. State of Indiana ( 2012 )

FILED
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before
any court except for the purpose of Feb 06 2012, 8:38 am
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
BARBARA J. SIMMONS GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Oldenburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
GARY R. ROM
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
MERANDA WHITE, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A02-1108-CR-687
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Deborah J. Shook, Master Commissioner
Cause No. 49F08-1012-CM-094752
February 6, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
VAIDIK, Judge
Case Summary
Meranda White appeals her conviction for Class A misdemeanor resisting law
enforcement. She argues that the evidence is insufficient to prove that she forcibly
resisted. Concluding that the evidence is sufficient, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
The evidence most favorable to the judgment shows that during the early morning
hours of December 24, 2010, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department Officer
Dustin Greathouse was dispatched to an apartment because of a domestic disturbance.
When Officer Greathouse walked into the apartment building, he heard a lot of yelling
and screaming coming from inside the apartment. He knocked on the door, and a female
answered. Officer Greathouse went inside to speak with White’s mother and sister. In
the meantime Officer Kelley Frame arrived on the scene and spoke with White in the
hallway. After Officer Greathouse’s discussion with White’s family, he decided to arrest
White for “[c]ombative injury.” Tr. p. 9.
Officer Greathouse handcuffed White behind her back and had her sit on the steps
in the hallway. When Officer Frame began to search White, she “kept trying to stand
up.” Id. The officers told White to have a seat “for her safety and ours due to her violent
nature.” Id. Instead of allowing Office Frame to search her, White “was pulling away
from her, not being real cooperative, [and] try[ing] to stand up.” Id. at 10. This went on
for “[s]everal minutes.” Id. at 15. After White’s repeated refusals to sit down, the
officers finally forced her to sit down on the steps. At this point, White “leaned back on
her back and started kicking at [Officer Greathouse] and kicking Officer Frame.” Id. at
2
10. All the while White was screaming profanities. Although White did not strike
Officer Greathouse while she was kicking, White did strike Officer Frame. Id. at 10-11.
White kicked Officer Frame “more than five” times in her legs and “[o]nce in the head.”
Id. at 15-16. The kicking lasted for “at least a minute,” at which point Officer
Greathouse went to his car and got a nylon strap which he used to strap White’s ankles to
prevent her from kicking them. Id. at 11.
The State charged White with Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. A
bench trial was held. Both Officers Greathouse and Frame testified for the State. White
testified in her own defense, explaining that she was angry at the time she was arrested
because of the incident with her family. She claimed that she stood up only once and
promptly sat back down when instructed. When asked if she “kicked at” the officers,
White responded, “Absolutely not.” Id. at 18. White explained that when the officers
pulled her back, her foot hit the officer. Id. at 19. The trial court found White guilty as
charged and sentenced her to 365 days with 351 days suspended and credit for time
served. The trial court placed her on probation for 351 days.
White now appeals her conviction.
Discussion and Decision
White contends that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction for Class
A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. When reviewing the sufficiency of the
evidence to support a conviction, we must consider only the probative evidence and
reasonable inferences supporting the judgment. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146
(Ind. 2007). We do not assess witness credibility or reweigh the evidence. Id. When
3
confronted with conflicting evidence, we consider it most favorably to the trial court’s
ruling. Id. We affirm the conviction unless “no reasonable fact-finder could find the
elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quotation omitted). It is
not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Id.
at 147. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to
support the judgment. Id.To convict White of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement as charged
here, the State had to prove that she knowingly or intentionally forcibly resisted,
obstructed, or interfered with a law enforcement officer while the officer was lawfully
engaged in the execution of his or her duties.1 Appellant’s App. p. 16; see also Ind. Code
§ 35-44-3-3(a)(1). White challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence on the force
element.
The Indiana Supreme Court addressed the evidence needed to support the force
element of resisting law enforcement in Graham v. State, 903 N.E.2d 963 (Ind. 2009).
There, the Court cited one of its earlier opinions, Spangler v. State, 607 N.E.2d 720 (Ind.
1993), and explained that a person forcibly resists law enforcement when strong,
powerful, violent means are used to evade a law enforcement official’s rightful exercise
of his or her duties. Id. at 965 (citing Spangler, 607 N.E.2d at 723). The Graham Court
1
We note that the charging information names only Officer Greathouse. The evidence shows that
while White kicked at both officers, she struck only Officer Frame. When there is a single charge of
resisting law enforcement, the State’s error in naming an officer in the charging information is not fatal.
See Parahams v. State, 908 N.E.2d 689, 693 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Moreover, White does not make much
of this on appeal, instead arguing that “the evidence fails to show how [she] used force to resist Officer
Greathouse or Officer Frame.” Appellant’s Br. p. 7 (emphasis added); see also id. at 4. Therefore, any
error in the State’s naming Officer Greathouse instead of Officer Frame in the charging information is of
no consequence in this case.
4
noted that the force involved need not rise to the level of “mayhem.” Id. It cited Johnson
v. State, 833 N.E.2d 516 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), with approval. In Johnson, when an
officer attempted to search a defendant in custody, the defendant “turned away and
pushed away with his shoulders” while cursing and yelling. Id. at 517. When officers
attempted to place him into a transport vehicle, the defendant “stiffened up,” and the
officers had to physically place him inside. Id. The Graham Court noted that the Court
of Appeals in Johnson correctly held that the defendant's actions constituted forcible
resistance. Graham, 903 N.E.2d at 966.
The evidence most favorable to the judgment here shows that after White was
handcuffed and told to sit down, she kept trying to stand up as Officer Frame attempted
to search her. This went on for several minutes. After White’s repeated refusals to sit
down, the officers finally forced her to sit down on the steps. At this point, White leaned
back and started kicking at Officer Greathouse and actually kicked Officer Frame. White
kicked Officer Frame more than five times in her legs and once in her head. White was
simultaneously screaming profanities. After a minute of kicking, Officer Greathouse
strapped White’s legs with a nylon strap.
On appeal, White would have us ignore these facts. Instead, she claims that “her
foot may have extended as the officers [were] forcing her to sit down” but she “did not
intentionally kick either officer during the encounter.” Appellant’s Br. p. 4 (emphasis
added); see also id. at 9 (“White’s actions of standing up from a sitting position and
extending her legs when she leaned back did not meet the elements of forcibly resisting
law enforcement by strong, powerful or violent means.”). White is simply asking us to
5
reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of the witnesses, which we will not do.
Because the evidence shows that White kicked at Officer Greathouse and actually kicked
Officer Frame at least six times, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to prove that
she forcibly resisted law enforcement. Because of the force used, all of the cases that
White cites on appeal regarding passive resistance are readily distinguishable. We
therefore affirm White’s conviction for Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.
Affirmed.
ROBB, C.J., and NAJAM, J., concur.
6