Mason v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 233
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Mason was convicted of unlawful use of body armor and resisting law enforcement (Class D felonies).
- Incident occurred November 26, 2008, when IMPD responded to a burglary in progress at Brighton Park Apartments.
- Mason attempted to flee in a car; he drove toward Officer McNeil at high speed after being identified as police officers by the officers.
- Jones exited the car; Mason continued to drive, causing crashes; officers tased Mason and he surrendered after arriving at the hospital.
- Officers later observed Mason wearing a bulletproof vest, which Mason claimed he wore to sell body armor that night.
- The State charged multiple counts; at trial Mason was found guilty of unlawful use of body armor and resisting law enforcement, with resisting counts merged for sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved Mason knew officers were police | State argues Mason knew officers were police. | Mason argues he did not know they were police. | Sufficient evidence showed knowledge of police identity |
| Whether wearing body armor constituted unlawful use | State contends wearing armor while resisting aided commission of the felony. | Mason contends wear alone does not amount to use. | There was sufficient evidence of intended use to aid the felony |
Key Cases Cited
- Eberle v. State, 942 N.E.2d 848 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (knowledge of officer status required for resisting with vehicle)
- Haggard v. State, 771 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (interprets 'use' of body armor and observes ambiguity in definition)
- Hayworth v. State, 798 N.E.2d 503 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (intent evidence via conduct and natural consequences may prove mental state)
- Perez v. State, 872 N.E.2d 208 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review; no reweighing of credibility)