Mickel Thacker v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 401
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On April 9, 2015 Kelly Poyck reported her 2002 Chevrolet Prism stolen; on April 15 officers located the vehicle in a bank parking lot.
- Jeanne Kistler called 9-1-1 after seeing two African‑American men in the front seat of the Prism.
- Officer Aaron Helton arrived in a marked car with lights and briefly activated his siren; he approached with his weapon drawn and ordered the occupants to stop.
- One occupant ran; Thacker walked toward the bank, initially moved but then complied and was arrested about 30 feet from Officer Helton.
- The car displayed post‑theft damage (busted passenger window, damaged passenger door, missing gas cap, pry marks); Thacker was tried by bench trial and convicted of Level 6 felony auto theft and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency for auto theft (IC § 35‑43‑4‑2.5) | Evidence showed Thacker was in the driver’s seat of the stolen car and flight plus vehicle damage supported inference he knowingly exerted unauthorized control. | Six days elapsed between theft and discovery; unexplained possession after that delay alone is insufficient—State needed additional evidence of knowledge. | Affirmed. Possession while driving plus recent damage and flight allowed inference Thacker knew the car was stolen. |
| Sufficiency for resisting law enforcement (IC § 35‑44.1‑3‑1) | Officer in marked car with lights/siren ordered stop; Thacker fled after audible/visible commands. | Thacker claims he did not hear the officer order him to stop. | Affirmed. Court credits officer testimony about visible/audible commands and flight; appellate court will not reweigh evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Binkley v. State, 654 N.E.2d 736 (Ind. 2007) (standard for sufficiency review; view evidence in light most favorable to conviction)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (appellate court will not reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility)
- Hughes v. State, 446 N.E.2d 1017 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (unexplained possession of stolen property may support theft conviction)
- Gibson v. State, 533 N.E.2d 187 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (possession not recently after theft requires additional evidence of knowledge)
- Shelby v. State, 875 N.E.2d 381 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (when possession is not recent or exclusive, court may consider other supporting evidence)
- Trotter v. State, 838 N.E.2d 553 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (arrest while driving a stolen vehicle permits inference of possession)
- Williamson v. State, 436 N.E.2d 90 (Ind. 1982) (flight can be evidence of guilt or knowledge of guilt)
- Fowler v. State, 878 N.E.2d 889 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (resisting conviction upheld where visible/audible officer commands were ignored)