Christopher Cowans v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 124
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Dec. 4, 2014, Cowans drove a truck that a marked, uniformed Indianapolis officer began following after a temporary tag check returned no record; Cowans noticed the police car and continued driving to find a better-lit area before stopping.
- Cowans drove in a lane reserved for southbound traffic, ran a red light at one intersection, and led the officer on a roughly six-minute, three-mile low-speed pursuit; he ultimately parked, put his hands out the window, and surrendered.
- Cowans testified he feared for his safety due to news reports of violent encounters between police and unarmed Black men and believed he had a right to drive to a well-lit location before stopping.
- He was charged with resisting law enforcement by fleeing (Level 6 felony when committed by vehicle) and tendered a jury instruction on mistake of fact.
- The trial court denied the mistake-of-fact instruction; a jury convicted Cowans and he was sentenced to 545 days (home detention + probation). Cowans appealed arguing the court abused its discretion by refusing his instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Cowans) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by refusing Cowans’s mistake-of-fact instruction | The belief Cowans asserts is a mistake of law, not fact; the "knowingly" element already addresses culpability | Cowans honestly and reasonably believed he could drive to a well-lit area before stopping (mistake of fact negating culpability) | No error; court affirmed — Cowans’s belief was a mistake of law, not fact |
| Whether ignorance of the law can excuse resisting by fleeing | Ignorance of law is not a defense; jury was properly instructed on knowing conduct | Cowans relied on common advice/news that drivers may seek safe locations before stopping | Affirmed that ignorance of law is not excused; mistake must be of fact to qualify |
| Whether jury should receive instruction defining "fleeing" in resisting-by-vehicle cases | State argued existing instructions (including knowingly) sufficed | Cowans argued jury needed guidance distinguishing safe relocation from flight | Court stated such a definition/instruction would be appropriate to determine "adequate justification," but denial of mistake-of-fact instruction was correct here |
| Whether the facts (duration, speed, opportunities to stop) support an "adequate justification" defense | State stressed defendant knowingly failed to stop and prolonged the stop | Cowans stressed fear and intent to increase safety, not to avoid arrest | Court found Cowans’s claimed justification amounted to legal belief; fact questions like adequacy of justification are for jury when properly instructed |
Key Cases Cited
- Washington v. State, 997 N.E.2d 342 (Ind. 2013) (standard of review for jury instructions and trial court discretion)
- Munford v. State, 923 N.E.2d 11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (instructions reviewed for error and overall correctness)
- Burton v. State, 978 N.E.2d 520 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (defendant entitled to instruction on defense with evidentiary foundation)
- Benham v. State, 637 N.E.2d 133 (Ind. 1994) (affirmance may rest on any correct basis in the record)
- Potter v. State, 684 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind. 1997) (elements of statutory mistake-of-fact defense)
- Yoder v. State, 194 N.E. 645 (Ind. 1935) (ignorance of the law is no excuse)
- Woodward v. State, 770 N.E.2d 897 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (driver who knows officer signaled to stop cannot choose stop location without adequate justification)
- Wellman v. State, 703 N.E.2d 1061 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (defines "flight" for resisting statute as knowing attempt to escape after order to stop)
- Hoskins v. State, 441 N.E.2d 419 (Ind. 1982) (flight as conscious act to avoid apprehension)