Chelsey Cody v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A05-1612-CR-2681
| Ind. Ct. App. | May 31, 2017Background
- On June 2, 2016, Sergeant Trimble and Deputy Merrill, in uniform and in a marked car, went to serve an outstanding arrest warrant on Chelsey Cody while she was sitting in her vehicle on a work break.
- Cody locked her doors and rolled up windows after officers identified themselves and advised her of the warrant; she refused multiple commands to exit the vehicle and called 911.
- Officers warned Cody she could be tased; she opened the driver’s door but refused to exit and stand as instructed.
- Sergeant Trimble grabbed Cody and "extracted her from the vehicle using an arm bar takedown;" Cody spun away and resisted being placed on the ground, requiring a front-leg sweep to gain control.
- Cody was arrested and charged with Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement (a separate marijuana possession charge was dismissed at trial).
- After a bench trial where the court credited Sergeant Trimble’s testimony over Cody’s, Cody was convicted; she appeals arguing insufficient evidence that her resistance was forcible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Cody "forcibly resisted" a law enforcement officer | The State: Cody refused orders, spun away when grabbed, and required physical force to subdue — satisfies "forcibly resisted." | Cody: Resistance was passive or accidental (could have lost balance); spinning does not necessarily show forcible resistance. | Court: Affirmed conviction; spinning away when grabbed is a "modest exertion" sufficient to show forcible resistance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard for sufficiency review and appellate deference to factfinder)
- Walker v. State, 998 N.E.2d 724 (Ind. 2013) (defining "forcibly resists" and noting modest exertion can suffice)
- Graham v. State, 903 N.E.2d 963 (Ind. 2009) (force need not rise to mayhem; stiffening or modest resistance may suffice)
- Macy v. State, 9 N.E.3d 249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (distinguished by court; discussed passive vs. forcible resistance)
- Colvin v. State, 916 N.E.2d 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (distinguished; involved passive resistance analysis)
- Berberena v. State, 914 N.E.2d 780 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (distinguished; addressed sufficiency for resisting convictions)