Antwonna Smith v. State of Indiana
21 N.E.3d 121
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Smith shoplifted from Meijer; loss prevention notified police; officer Jones stopped Smith and attempted to handcuff her.
- A struggle ensued; Jones forced Smith to the ground while she resisted; a knee strike and pulling of Smith's arm occurred.
- Meijer employee grabbed Smith’s arm during the struggle; Jones and employees wrestled Smith and she was injured.
- Officer Jones sustained bodily injuries to his knuckle and fingertip; the injuries occurred during the takedown.
- Smith was convicted of theft and resisting law enforcement; the resisting charge was enhanced to a Class D felony based on the officer’s injuries.
- The court reviews whether “inflicts bodily injury” requires the State to prove Smith caused/infringed the injuries, construes the statute strictly, and remands for a conviction as a Class A misdemeanor if necessary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the enhancement for resisting law enforcement was proper | State: injury qualifies enhancement if inflicted or caused | Smith: she did not inflict or cause the injury; passive participant | Enhancement improper; remand for Class A misdemeanor |
Key Cases Cited
- Woods v. State, 274 Ind. 624 (Ind. 1980) (sufficiency review standard)
- Brown v. State, 868 N.E.2d 464 (Ind. 2007) (strictly construe ambiguous penal language against State)
- Whaley v. State, 843 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (inflict vs. result in bodily injury; causation discussion)
- In re C.F., 911 N.E.2d 657 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (statutory interpretation and factual distinctions relevant to abuse/discipline)
- Lincoln Utils., Inc. v. Office of Util. Consumer Counselor, 661 N.E.2d 562 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (horizontal stare decisis considerations; diversity of panel decisions)
- Pavlovich v. State, 6 N.E.3d 969 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (notes on sentencing structure changes (contextual))