Leslie Michelle New v. State of Indiana, 135 N.E.3d 619

Leslie New removed her five-year-old daughter from her aunt and uncle's home after an argument; while leaving she backed her vehicle into the aunt (Barbara), who fell, and then drove away. Barbara called 911.
Sheriff’s deputies stopped New; Deputy Lanham removed her from the vehicle and attempted to prevent her from reentering; New resisted being led away and struggled while being handcuffed, requiring assistance from another officer.
The State charged New with battery by means of a deadly weapon, class B misdemeanor criminal recklessness (for backing into Barbara), and class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement; the jury convicted on recklessness and resisting but acquitted on the deadly-weapon battery charge.
At trial New tendered a jury instruction defining negligence and distinguishing negligence from recklessness; the trial court refused the instruction, relying on pattern instructions defining recklessly, knowingly, and intentionally.
On appeal New argued the court abused its discretion by refusing the negligence instruction (prejudicing her criminal recklessness conviction) and separately challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for resisting law enforcement.
The Court of Appeals reversed New’s criminal recklessness conviction due to the instructional error and remanded for a new trial on that count, but affirmed her resisting conviction based on sufficient evidence of forcible resistance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether refusal to give defendant’s proposed negligence instruction was an abuse of discretion and prejudiced defendant’s criminal recklessness conviction	State: Pattern instructions defining recklessness, knowingly, intentionally suffice; additional negligence instruction could confuse jury	New: Driving is conduct that can be done with due care; her defense was accident/negligence, so jury needed instruction distinguishing negligence from recklessness	Court: Trial court abused discretion; negligence instruction was proper and its omission prejudiced New as to criminal recklessness — conviction reversed and remanded for new trial
Whether evidence was sufficient to support conviction for resisting law enforcement	State: Deputy Lanham’s testimony described repeated pulling away, grabbing by shoulders, and a struggle requiring another officer — constitutes forcible resistance	New: Argued the State failed to prove she ‘‘forcibly’’ resisted	Court: Evidence sufficient — modest exertion of strength to impede an officer satisfies forcible resistance; resisting conviction affirmed

Cichos v. State, 184 N.E.2d 1 (1962) (refusal to instruct jury that mere negligence is not criminally reckless in vehicle-related homicide was reversible error)
Sipp v. State, 514 N.E.2d 330 (1987) (followed Cichos; negligence instruction required in vehicle cases where defendant’s theory was accident)
Springer v. State, 798 N.E.2d 431 (2003) (negligence is generally an argument, not a separate defense to recklessness, but negligence instruction may be required in cases involving conduct that can be performed with due care, e.g., driving)
Kane v. State, 976 N.E.2d 1228 (2012) (standards for reviewing trial court’s refusal to give a tendered instruction)
Hernandez v. State, 45 N.E.3d 373 (2015) (requirement to assess prejudice when instruction refusal is error)
Walker v. State, 998 N.E.2d 724 (2013) (forcible resistance defined; even modest exertion of strength can satisfy element of resisting law enforcement)