Freddie Patterson v. State of Indiana
11 N.E.3d 1036
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- On March 25, 2013, Officers Williams and Cooper responded to a reported battery involving Freddie Patterson and his cousin; officers observed signs of intoxication on both men.
- Patterson initially corroborated the cousin’s statement but later returned home and told officers his wife had not hit anyone.
- When officers asked Patterson to stay, he became hostile, charged to within six inches of Officer Williams’s face, adopted a fighting stance, and was larger than the officer.
- Officers pushed Patterson back with an open-handed strike; when he approached again they attempted to handcuff him and a physical struggle ensued as Patterson thrashed and tensed, preventing cuffing.
- After several minutes of wrestling and foregoing a TASER, Officer Williams delivered a single open-handed strike to Patterson’s face; Patterson then stopped resisting, was handcuffed, and slightly injured.
- Patterson was charged with Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement; a jury convicted him and the trial court placed him on one year probation. Patterson appealed arguing insufficient evidence (due to alleged excessive force) and errors in jury instructions.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Patterson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: whether officers were lawfully executing duties when Patterson resisted | Officers reasonably responded to Patterson’s aggression; force used was proportional to gain control | Officers used excessive/unlawful force, negating lawfulness of arrest and thus defense to resisting | Evidence sufficient; force was objectively reasonable and not excessive, so resisting conviction stands |
| Jury instruction redaction: deletion of sentence permitting resistance up to protecting from great bodily harm or death | Other instructions (self-defense/reasonable force) adequately covered the privilege to resist unlawful force | Deletion of final sentence from Patterson’s tendered instruction denied explicit statement of right to resist excessive force | No abuse of discretion; combined instructions adequately informed jury of right to resist unlawful force |
| Jury instruction addition: court added sentence that force need not rise to mayhem level | Addition clarified and fully defined "forcibly resists" consistent with case law; not confusing | Addition was fundamental error because it could confuse jury and resemble appellate standard (relied on Ludy) | Not error (no objection at trial); added language appropriately defined "forcibly resists" and was not fundamentally unfair |
| Standard for "forcibly resists" | Modest level of resistance suffices; need not be violent to level of mayhem | "Forcibly" requires strong/violent means; should modify each listed verb strictly | Court held "forcibly" can encompass modest or non-mayhem resistance; broader definition supported by precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (reasonableness standard for excessive-force claims under the Fourth Amendment)
- Shoultz v. State, 735 N.E.2d 818 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (officer using excessive force ceases to be lawfully engaged in duties)
- Spangler v. State, 607 N.E.2d 720 (Ind. 1993) (defining scope of "forcibly resists")
- Graham v. State, 903 N.E.2d 963 (Ind. 2009) (language that force to sustain resisting conviction need not rise to mayhem)
- Ludy v. State, 784 N.E.2d 459 (Ind. 2003) (instruction error may be fundamental when potentially confusing or emphasizing particular evidence)
- Johnson v. State, 833 N.E.2d 516 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (resisting conviction upheld where defendant used shoulders to push officers; "forcibly" need not mean striking or biting)