Adetokunbo v. State
29 N.E.3d 1277
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Adetokunbo and Itaniyi were tried as codefendants in a bench trial on resisting law enforcement, battery, and other charges.
- Itaniyi became agitated and refused to surrender her child to DCS, prompting police involvement.
- Security guard Flores called police; Officer Renn assisted with removal of the child and custody.
- Adetokunbo punched Flores; later Adetokunbo and Itaniyi confronted officers during handcuffing and restraint.
- Itaniyi screamed and attempted to kick Officer Renn; both defendants were ultimately convicted on multiple counts.
- On appeal, the convictions were challenged for sufficiency of the evidence, with a remand for Itaniyi’s battery conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Itaniyi resisting law enforcement sufficiency | Itaniyi forcibly resisted via threatening gesture toward Renn. | No forcible resistance shown; actions were not a clear battery or force against officer. | Sufficient evidence supports resistance conviction. |
| Itaniyi battery sufficiency against Flores | Itaniyi touched Flores; battery proven. | No evidence Itaniyi touched Flores; variance fatal. | Battery against Flores not proven; variances fatal; reversed and vacated. |
| Itaniyi disorderly conduct sufficiency | Itaniyi yelled loudly despite repeated requests to stop. | Noise might be reasonable under circumstances; no unreasonable conduct. | Sufficient evidence supports disorderly conduct conviction. |
| Adetokunbo resisting law enforcement sufficiency | Adetokunbo pulled away, stiffened arms, and was brought to ground, showing forcible resistance. | No forcible resistance proved beyond mere noncompliance. | Sufficient evidence supports resisting law enforcement conviction. |
| Adetokunbo battery sufficiency | Adetokunbo punched Flores and knocked off glasses; rude touching shown. | Touching not proven to be rude or angry toward Flores. | Sufficient evidence supports battery conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- K.W. v. State, 984 N.E.2d 610 (Ind. 2013) (defines forcible resistance as some physical interaction)
- Spangler v. State, 607 N.E.2d 720 (Ind. 1993) (legislative interpretation of resisting, obstructing, or interfering)
- Macy v. State, 9 N.E.3d 249 (Ind.Ct.App. 2014) (forcible resistance can be inferred from threatening gestures)
- Walker v. State, 998 N.E.2d 724 (Ind.2013) (imminent danger shown by aggressive approach toward officer)
- Graham v. State, 903 N.E.2d 963 (Ind.2009) (stiffening of arms supports forcible resistance finding)
- Evans v. State, 393 N.E.2d 246 (Ind.App. 1979) (victim identity in charging information and variances)
- Robinson v. State, 112 N.E.2d 861 (Ind.1953) (essential nature of victim's identity in offense description)
- Parahams v. State, 908 N.E.2d 689 (Ind.Ct.App. 2009) (immaterial variances in certain fleeing-offense contexts)
- Jones v. State, 938 N.E.2d 1248 (Ind.Ct.App. 2010) (variances in charging information—factors depend on context)
- Impson v. State, 721 N.E.2d 1275 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000) (battery sufficiency for certain touching cases)
- Greene v. State, 670 N.E.2d 38 (Ind.Ct.App. 1996) (touching in battery cases as sufficient to convict)
- Ball v. State, 945 N.E.2d 252 (Ind.Ct.App. 2011) (any touching, slight, can support battery under statute)