Larry Craig v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1606-CR-1232
Ind. Ct. App. Recl.Apr 10, 2017Background
- On Oct. 9, 2015 Sgt. Scott Wildauer (in uniform, marked car) observed Larry Craig commit traffic violations (following too closely, failing to signal) and activated lights/siren to effect a stop at a gas station; Craig drove off and led police on a high‑speed pursuit in a residential area.
- During the pursuit the vehicle missed multiple stop signs, sped >50 mph in a 30 mph zone, struck a guide wire and sideswiped an IPL pole, then stopped; Craig exited, looked at the officer, and fled on foot; he was later apprehended and said he ran because he feared Wildauer and wanted to go home.
- Charges: (Count I) resisting law enforcement (level 6 felony — use of vehicle), (Count II) resisting law enforcement (class A misdemeanor — on foot), (Count III) reckless driving (class C misdemeanor), (Count IV) leaving the scene of an accident (class B misdemeanor).
- Pretrial/threshold motions: Defense sought to exclude testimony about Sgt. Wildauer’s prescription use of Norco (prescribed after the incident) and moved for dismissal/directed verdict arguing the stop was pretextual and seizure unlawful.
- Trial: Wildauer testified about the stop/pursuit; Craig testified he tried to avoid being forced to "snitch" on prior instruction from the officer and that any contact with the pole was minor. Jury convicted on all counts; trial court imposed concurrent jail terms.
- Appeal: Craig argued (1) admission/exclusion of evidence about Wildauer’s narcotic prescription was error, (2) insufficient evidence for resisting and leaving the scene, and (3) double jeopardy barred convictions on both resisting counts.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Craig's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Wildauer’s long‑term Norco use | Evidence was irrelevant and defendant waived request | Medication use could impeach memory/credibility and affect ability to testify | Trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding broader inquiry; admission denial affirmed |
| Sufficiency — resisting law enforcement (felony/misdemeanor) | Stop supported by observed traffic infractions; pretext irrelevant; defendant not free to ignore order | Stop was pretextual/invalid under Article 1, §11; order lacked reasonable suspicion/probable cause | Evidence was sufficient: officer had reasonable suspicion/probable cause; convictions for resisting (vehicle felony) affirmed |
| Sufficiency — leaving the scene of an accident | Evidence showed collision with utility infrastructure (guide wire/pole) so statutory duty to stop was triggered | No proof the pole was damaged or that charge matched the actual damage (guide wire vs pole) | Evidence sufficient for leaving the scene; conviction affirmed |
| Double jeopardy — two resisting convictions for same flight | State conceded two convictions violate double jeopardy; lesser offense should be vacated | Single continuous act of fleeing should not yield two punishments | Court vacated the class A misdemeanor resisting conviction and remanded to amend sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. State, 765 N.E.2d 1265 (Ind. 2002) (standard of review for admission/exclusion of evidence)
- McKim v. State, 476 N.E.2d 503 (Ind. 1985) (drug/alcohol use pertinent to witness’s ability to recall only if use at event or at trial or severe impairment)
- Jordan v. State, 656 N.E.2d 816 (Ind. 1995) (standard for sufficiency review — no reweighing credibility)
- Gaddie v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1249 (Ind. 2014) (officer’s order to stop must be supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause to sustain resisting charge)
- Moala v. State, 969 N.E.2d 1061 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (vacate lesser punishment when double jeopardy prohibits multiple convictions for same conduct)
- Lewis v. State, 43 N.E.3d 689 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (fleeing by vehicle then on foot is a continuous act; dual resisting convictions cannot both stand)
- Smith v. State, 754 N.E.2d 502 (Ind. 2001) (abuse of discretion standard explained)