Willie Moore v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 18
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Moore was stopped by Coppertree's courtesy officer on suspicion related to trespass and prior complaints.
- Officer Helmer attempted a pat-down; Moore ran, resulting in a foot pursuit and Moore's eventual arrest.
- A loaded firearm was found during a search of Moore after the arrest, leading to charges of resisting law enforcement (Level 6) and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (Level 4); an additional Level 5 count for an altered handgun was later dismissed as a lesser-included offense.
- Moore argued pre-trial suppression on privacy/privacy-right grounds and challenged the Illinois residential burglary statute as not substantially similar to Indiana burglary, plus sufficiency of the resisting conviction.
- The trial court denied suppression; Moore was convicted on all counts, and sentenced to concurrent terms; on appeal, the conviction for Level 6 resisting law enforcement was ultimately reversed.
- The appellate court affirmed the handgun possession conviction (SVF) but remanded to vacate the Level 6 conviction and re-enter a Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of the handgun evidence | Moore contends stop/search violated Fourth Amendment privacy rights. | Helmer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop; evidence should be suppressed. | Admissible under both US and Indiana constitutions; stop reasonable and search proper. |
| Substantial similarity of Illinois residential burglary to Indiana burglary | Illinois statute not substantially similar; cannot support SVF predicate. | Illinois statute is substantially similar to Indiana's burglary statute. | Illinois residential burglary is substantially similar to Indiana burglary; valid predicate for SVF. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to elevate resisting conviction to Level 6 felony | Moore proximately caused officer's injury; evidence supports Level 6. | Moore's actions were not proximate cause of injury; only a contributing factor. | Insufficient evidence to prove proximate causation; reversed to Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia v. State, 25 N.E.3d 786 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (admission standard and de novo review for constitutional challenges to search)
- Russell v. State, 993 N.E.2d 1176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (reliability of concerned citizen tips for reasonable suspicion)
- Bazaln v. State, 45 N.E.3d 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (foreign law substantially similar standard applicable to SVF predicates)
- Hollingsworth v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1026 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (standard for evaluating substantial similarity of foreign statutes)
- Akins v. State, 824 N.E.2d 676 (Ind. 2005) (substantial similarity where foreign statute is more stringent)
- Beauchamp, 241 Ill.2d 1, 348 Ill. Dec. 366, 944 N.E.2d 319 (Ill. 2011) (entry/force implied in Illinois burglary statute; breaking not required)
- Abney v. State, 766 N.E.2d 1175 (Ind. 2002) (proximate cause standard for criminal causation)
- Whaley v. State, 843 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (conduct causing officer injuries when resisting arrest; proximate cause context)
- Smith v. State, 21 N.E.3d 121 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (distinguishes proximate cause in resisting arrest injuries)
- Chatham v. State, 845 N.E.2d 203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (remand for lesser-included offense when evidence supports lesser conviction)
- J.B. v. State, 30 N.E.3d 51 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (contextual guidance on stop and search)