Lewis v. State
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 728
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On March 12, 2012, Officer Michael Clark initiated a traffic stop of a white van driven by Anthony Lewis; Lewis gave false/hesitant identification and claimed no license or registration.
- Lewis refused to exit, fled in the van at high speed, and was pursued by Officer Clark in a high-speed chase.
- Lewis abandoned the van in a parking lot, ran on foot when ordered to stop, and led officers on a foot pursuit before escaping the initial search.
- Lewis was later identified via license-plate inquiry and photo identification and charged with three counts: resisting law enforcement (Class D felony for fleeing in a vehicle), resisting law enforcement (Class A misdemeanor for fleeing on foot), and operating a vehicle while license suspended (Class A misdemeanor).
- A jury convicted Lewis on all counts; on appeal he argued the two resisting convictions violate double jeopardy/continuous-crime principles because they arose from one continuous flight.
- The State agreed; the court reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the Class A misdemeanor resisting conviction, leaving the felony resisting and suspended-license convictions intact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two resisting-law-enforcement convictions (vehicle and foot) violate double jeopardy/continuous-crime doctrine | Lewis: the vehicle flight and the subsequent foot flight were one continuous act, so two convictions constitute multiple punishments for a single offense | State: conceded the continuous-act argument and agreed relief should be vacatur of the misdemeanor conviction | Court: convictions arise from one continuous act; vacate the Class A misdemeanor resisting conviction and remand with instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- Arthur v. State, 824 N.E.2d 383 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (vehicle flight followed by foot flight constitutes one continuous act of resisting)
- Hines v. State, 30 N.E.3d 1216 (Ind. 2015) (continuous-crime doctrine applies only where Legislature has defined an offense as continuous)
- Idle v. State, 587 N.E.2d 712 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (double jeopardy/continuing offense analysis)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (legislative intent governs continuity and multiplicity analyses)