Christapher Batchelor v. State of Indiana, 119 N.E.3d 550

Deputy Switzer activated lights/siren after observing Batchelor driving without a seatbelt; Batchelor did not stop immediately and drove ~1:38 through a well-lit residential area at ~35 mph before stopping in a gravel lot.
After stopping Batchelor resisted arrest; multiple officers were required to subdue him and sustained injuries.
Batchelor was charged with Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement by fleeing, Level 6 felony battery on a police officer, and Class A misdemeanor resisting arrest; jury convicted on all counts.
Trial used a supplemental Instruction 22 (modeled on Cowans v. State) defining "flees" to include whether a "reasonable driver in the Defendant’s position" would have felt unsafe to stop or would have stopped sooner; neither side objected at trial.
Court of Appeals reversed the felony-resisting conviction as the instruction lowered the mens rea to a civil negligence standard; Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed convictions, holding Instruction 22 misstated law but the full jury charge cured the defect and the evidence clearly established knowing flight; the Court expressly disapproved the Cowans instruction.

Issue	State's Argument	Batchelor's Argument	Held
Whether Instruction 22 improperly lowered the mens rea for felony resisting by using a "reasonable driver" standard	Instruction embodied correct law and cured by other instructions; not fundamental error	Instruction permitted conviction on civil negligence rather than required "knowingly or intentionally" standard	Instruction misstated law (permitted negligence standard) but overall jury charge cured error; no reversal on that ground
Whether Batchelor invited or waived review by failing to object at trial	Failure to object constitutes invited error; claim should be precluded	No evidence of a deliberate trial strategy; mere acquiescence is not invited error	Not invited error—no evidence of strategic maneuvering; review permitted under fundamental-error standard
Whether the instructional error was "fundamental" or harmless given the evidence	Even if error, evidence of knowing flight was overwhelming; harmless	Instructional defect violated due process by relieving State of burden	Error was harmless: circumstantial and video evidence supported that Batchelor knowingly fled beyond a reasonable doubt
Whether Cowans-based instruction should be used in future trials	N/A (State had relied on Cowans at trial)	Cowans instruction improperly imports extrastatutory factors	Court expressly disapproved Cowans instruction and directed use of Pattern Crim. Jury Instruction 5.3040 going forward

Campbell v. State, 19 N.E.3d 271 (Ind. 2014) (purpose of jury instructions is to inform jury without misleading)
Cowans v. State, 53 N.E.3d 540 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (Court of Appeals suggested a "reasonable driver" safety-based fleeing definition; disapproved here)
Durden v. State, 99 N.E.3d 645 (Ind. 2018) (distinguishes waiver from invited error; discusses fundamental-error review)
Winegeart v. State, 665 N.E.2d 893 (Ind. 1996) (instruction that relieves State of proving specific intent violates due process)
Ramsey v. State, 723 N.E.2d 869 (Ind. 2000) (analyzing whether jury instructions as a whole cure a defective instruction)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (U.S. 1970) (prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary for conviction)
Elonis v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2001 (U.S. 2015) (criminal culpability generally requires awareness of wrongdoing)