Norbert Machan v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 71A03-1703-CR-549

Defendant Norbert Machan, released on bond, failed to appear for court; magistrate increased his bond and, after Machan said he could not pay, ordered him detained.
A deputy ordered Machan to place his hands behind his back and attempted to handcuff him; before cuffs were applied Machan fled the courtroom, exited the courthouse, and ran down the street while officers pursued him.
Machan ignored officers’ commands to stop and shouted profanities during the pursuit.
The State charged Machan with level 5 felony escape (Intentionally fleeing from lawful detention under Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-4(a)).
A jury convicted Machan and the trial court sentenced him to four years; Machan appealed arguing (1) insufficient evidence that he was in lawful detention and (2) the statutory definition of “lawful detention” is unconstitutionally vague.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: Was Machan under "lawful detention" when he fled?	State: magistrate ordered detention; deputy was attempting to restrain him; statutory catchall covers court-ordered detention.	Machan: not lawfully detained because physical custody had not yet been effectuated.	Court: Evidence sufficient; magistrate's order plus officer action constituted lawful detention (follows Anglin).
Vagueness: Is the statutory definition of "lawful detention" unconstitutionally vague?	State: statute lists specific categories and a reasonable catchall; presumption of constitutionality; statute gives fair notice.	Machan: catchall "any other detention for law enforcement purposes" is overbroad and fails to give fair notice that running from law enforcement equals escaping custody.	Court: Claim waived for failure to move to dismiss below; on merits, statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied.

Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Anglin v. State, 787 N.E.2d 1012 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (court-ordered waiting for transport can constitute lawful detention)
Woods v. State, 140 N.E.2d 752 (Ind. 1957) (upholding catchall language and rejecting overbroad ejusdem generis limitation)
Brown v. State, 868 N.E.2d 464 (Ind. 2007) (statutes must give fair warning; vagueness standard)
Lee v. State, 973 N.E.2d 1207 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (failure to raise constitutional challenge below generally waives issue on appeal)
Zitlaw v. State, 880 N.E.2d 724 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (vagueness invalid only if vague as applied to the precise circumstances)