Maddox T. Macy v. State of Indiana
2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 221
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Neighbor reported being bitten by two dogs owned by Maddox Macy; animal control and Officer Roger Bowland responded the next day.
- Macy was initially uncooperative, later yelled at officers, and was warned she would be arrested if she did not calm down.
- Officer Bowland arrested Macy after she continued yelling; she was handcuffed behind her back and placed in the front seat of the patrol car.
- Macy opened the car door, exited, refused to re-enter, and kept her feet outside the vehicle; Officer Bowland testified he had to force her back into the car and place her feet inside.
- Macy was convicted at a bench trial of disorderly conduct and resisting law enforcement (Class A misdemeanor); she appealed only the resisting conviction.
Issues and Key Cases Cited
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient evidence that Macy "forcibly" resisted a law enforcement officer under Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1) | Macy’s opening the car door and refusing to put her feet in the car constituted forcible resistance because force was required to return her to the vehicle | Macy’s actions were passive (opening a door; keeping feet on ground) and did not involve directing strength, power, or violence toward the officer, so they do not meet the statutory "forcibly" element | Reversed: the evidence did not show "forcible" resistance; opening the door and keeping feet outside were passive and insufficient to sustain the conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Spangler v. State, 607 N.E.2d 720 (Ind. 1993) (defines "forcibly resists" as using strength, power, or violence to evade an officer)
- Graham v. State, 903 N.E.2d 963 (Ind. 2009) (force need not equal mayhem; even stiffening can be relevant)
- K.W. v. State, 984 N.E.2d 610 (Ind. 2013) (juvenile’s pulling away from officer not sufficient for "forcible" element)
- A.C. v. State, 929 N.E.2d 907 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (passive refusal to comply does not constitute forcible resistance; officer’s use of force in response is not dispositive)
- Colvin v. State, 916 N.E.2d 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (reversing resisting conviction where defendant’s noncompliance led officers to physically place him on ground)
- Wellman v. State, 703 N.E.2d 1061 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (bracing against doorway and being shoved through supported forcible-resistance conviction)