Nathaniel Thrash v. State of Indiana
49A02-1603-CR-494
| Ind. Ct. App. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- On Sept. 29, 2015 IMPD officers Cooper and Jackson responded to an apartment; the caller (Thrash’s ex‑girlfriend) said Thrash was inside and she thought he might have a warrant. Officers spotted Thrash, who ran into a basement hallway and hid.
- Officers announced themselves, drew weapons and ordered Thrash to show his hands; Thrash did not comply and kept his hands in his coat pockets under his body.
- Officers grabbed Thrash’s arms; he pulled away, a leg sweep brought him to the ground, and he continued to resist, refusing to remove his hands. Officer Cooper later reported back pain and was diagnosed with a sprain; Thrash apologized at the scene.
- State charged Thrash with two counts of resisting law enforcement: Count I (Level 6 felony — alleged bodily injury to officer while resisting) and Count II (Class A misdemeanor — resisting while officers were lawfully performing duties).
- At trial the officers testified to the ex‑girlfriend’s out‑of‑court statement (that she thought Thrash had a warrant); the court gave a limiting instruction that the statement was admitted only to explain the officers’ conduct. Jury convicted on both counts; Thrash appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of ex‑girlfriend’s statement (hearsay) | The statement was admissible as course‑of‑investigation evidence to explain why officers pursued Thrash. | The statement was hearsay and prejudicial because it implied Thrash had a warrant and was offered for its truth. | Trial court did not abuse discretion admitting the statement for limited purpose; any error was harmless given limiting instruction and strong evidence of resistance. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Level 6 felony (did Thrash cause officer’s injury?) | Sufficient: Thrash’s resisting conduct proximately caused Officer Cooper’s back injury, elevating the offense. | Insufficient: causation unclear; officer’s injury could have resulted from officers’ own actions or other causes (Moore/Smith analogies). | Evidence was sufficient — Thrash’s continued, obstructive resistance was a proximate cause of Cooper’s injury (analogous to Whaley). |
| Double jeopardy re: two resisting convictions | Two convictions are proper because the misdemeanor and felony rest on different elements (resistance vs. resistance + bodily injury). | Convictions violate actual‑evidence test because same conduct supported both counts. | No double jeopardy violation: convictions were based on discrete elements and discrete proof (separate evidentiary footprints). |
Key Cases Cited
- Blount v. State, 22 N.E.3d 559 (Ind. 2014) (course‑of‑investigation hearsay admissible only for limited purpose; risk jury uses it for truth requires careful scrutiny)
- Craig v. State, 630 N.E.2d 207 (Ind. 1994) (three‑part test for whether out‑of‑court statement is hearsay or admissible to explain police action)
- Patton v. State, 725 N.E.2d 462 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (out‑of‑court statements to police may be non‑hearsay when used to explain police conduct)
- Whaley v. State, 843 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (defendant’s actions that left officers no option but forcefully to overcome resistance can proximately cause officers’ injuries and support felony elevation)
- Smith v. State, 21 N.E.3d 121 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (passive resistance where officer’s voluntary actions, not defendant’s conduct, caused injury does not establish proximate cause for felony elevation)
- Moore v. State, 49 N.E.3d 1095 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (defendant’s conduct must be proximate, not merely contributing, cause of officer’s injury to support felony enhancement)