Stansberry v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1739
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- IMPD responded to a residential burglary investigation on Nov. 4, 2010; an air conditioning unit had been removed and crudely cut away.
- Stansberry arrived in a pickup truck with an air conditioning unit and gave the name 'Lewis Stansberry' when identified by Officer Perkins.
- Stansberry approached the officer with his hand in his pocket, refused to come to the back of the truck, and began removing his clothing while advancing toward the officer.
- Officer Perkins sprayed Stansberry with pepper spray twice as Stansberry moved toward him and refused to comply, ultimately submission occurred after the second spray.
- On Nov. 9 and 10, 2010, the State charged Stansberry with Operating a Motor Vehicle After License Forfeited for Life (Count I) and Resisting Law Enforcement (Count II); a Community Corrections violation notice followed, and probation violation notices were filed.
- At a bench trial on Feb. 4, 2011, the court granted a dismissal of Count II but allowed conviction on the lesser-included 'attempted resisting'; Stansberry was found guilty of 'attempted resisting law enforcement' and sentenced, with probation revoked and DOC time to be served; on appeal, the conviction was reversed and remanded for lack of proof of resistance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports resisting law enforcement or its attempted form | Stansberry's actions did not amount to forcible resistance, obstruction, or interference | The State argued there was forcible resistance justifying the conviction | Insufficient evidence of resistance; no forcible resistance found; reverse on the element of resistance/obstruction; remand for credit time determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- McCaffrey v. State, 605 N.E.2d 241 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (definitions of resist/obstruct/interfere and forceful resistance)
- Spangler v. State, 607 N.E.2d 720 (Ind. 1993) (analysis of forcible resistance and limits of 'forcibly')
- Graham v. State, 903 N.E.2d 963 (Ind. 2009) (modest level of resistance can suffice)
- Pogue v. State, 937 N.E.2d 1253 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (presence of threat/strength can satisfy forcible resistance)
- Wellman v. State, 703 N.E.2d 1061 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (actions like placing hands on doorway can be forceful resistance)