Dustin A. Evans v. State of Indiana, 2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 302

Early morning encounter: Officer Garvey found Dustin Evans, who had an active warrant, near a residence; Evans fled and was later apprehended. A search of his backpack revealed methamphetamine and a knotted sock with five syringes.
Medical transport: After reporting he had swallowed heroin bags, Evans was taken to a hospital for treatment, cleared, handcuffed, and placed in Officer Bostock’s patrol car (legs unrestrained).
Escape: While being transported back to jail, Evans vomited, then kicked open the passenger door and ran; he evaded officers for about an hour and was recaptured days later.
Charges and conviction: State charged Evans with escape (Level 5 felony) and unlawful possession of a syringe (Level 6 felony). A jury convicted him of both counts.
Sentence and appeal: Trial court imposed consecutive executed terms (6 years for escape, 2 years for syringe possession). Evans appealed, raising (1) alleged fundamental error in jury instructions about mens rea and (2) abuse of discretion in imposing consecutive sentences because offenses arose from a single episode.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Evans)	Held
Whether the jury instructions constituted fundamental error by adding the mens rea “knowingly” to the statutory element “intentionally” for escape	Incorrect wording was harmless because mens rea was not a central issue; the charging information, closing argument, and instructions elsewhere correctly conveyed “intentionally”	The inclusion of “knowingly” misstated the statute and, because Evans did not object at trial, the error was fundamental and preserved for appeal	No fundamental error: taken as a whole the jury was informed that the State had to prove Evans intentionally fled; conviction stands
Whether consecutive sentences were improper because convictions arose from a single episode of criminal conduct	Distinct episodes: possession occurred at arrest; escape occurred later at the patrol car/hospital—each could be described independently; consecutive terms permissible	The offenses were part of one continuous episode; consecutive sentences therefore violated the statute limiting total consecutive terms for a single episode	No abuse of discretion: court found two separate episodes (possession at arrest; later escape), so consecutive sentences were allowed

Ramsey v. State, 723 N.E.2d 869 (Ind. 2000) (instructional defect cured where correct mens rea appeared in charging instrument and other instructions)
Winkleman v. State, 22 N.E.3d 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (mens rea instruction error not fundamental where mens rea was not central issue)
Newman v. State, 690 N.E.2d 735 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (multiple criminal episodes found where offenses occurred at temporally and factually distinct points)
Purdy v. State, 727 N.E.2d 1091 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (single episode found where related crimes occurred in short sequence and were all tied to same course of conduct)
Reed v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1189 (Ind. 2006) (statutory rule limiting consecutive sentences absent express authority)