BAILEY, Judge.
George R. Clark ("Clark") appeals his conviction for Resisting Law Enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor.
Clark presents two issues for review:
Around 1:00 a.m. on December 27, 2009, French Lick Assistant Police Chief Marshall Noble ("Assistant Chief Noble") contacted Clark, aged eighty-two, to provide transportation for his son, Danny Clark ("Danny"). Danny's girlfriend had insisted that he needed to leave their apartment, and Danny appeared to be under the influence of alcohol such that operating an automobile was not prudent.
Clark drove his son away from the apartment complex and stopped at a nearby convenience store, Huck's. At the same time, Assistant Chief Noble and French Lick Patrolman Aaron Kemple ("Officer Kemple") stopped at Huck's to get fuel. West Baden Springs Reserve Officer Jason Kendall ("Officer Kendall"), also present at Huck's, heard Danny yell an obscenity at Assistant Chief Noble. Also, Danny had "flipped off" Assistant Chief Noble. (Tr. 93.) Assistant Chief Noble decided to arrest Danny for public intoxication.
When Officer Kemple walked out of Huck's, he encountered a "scuffle up" between Danny and Assistant Chief Noble. (Tr. 36.) He decided to assist with the arrest. As they and Officer Kendall struggled with Danny, Assistant Chief Noble was pinned against the convenience store glass front and felt it sway; he feared that it might give way and shouted to the other officers to move away from the window.
Around this time, Clark exited his vehicle and began walking toward the officers, with his hands in his pockets. Assistant Chief Noble instructed Clark to go back; Clark simply responded, "no." (Tr. 95.) Assistant Chief Noble decided to handcuff Clark, who then began to back up with his hands remaining in his pockets.
Assistant Chief Noble attempted to pull Clark's hands behind his back but Clark was "not allowing" this. (Tr. 97.) Assistant Chief Noble was unable to view Clark's hands but suspected that Clark was holding onto his belt or had clasped his hands together. He pushed Clark forward onto his vehicle and "that stopped his hands from doing anything else." (Tr. 97.) Nonetheless, Clark was "trying to struggle" and Assistant Chief Noble's handcuffs were knocked out of his grasp during the struggle. (Tr. 97.) French Lick Reserve Police Officer Jesse Crane arrived at Huck's and assisted with the handcuffing process. Thereafter, Officer Kendall noticed that Assistant Chief Noble had a cut on his hand.
The State charged Clark with Resisting Law Enforcement, as a Class D felony, and Disorderly Conduct, a Class B misdemeanor.
Clark concedes that he did not return to his vehicle when ordered to do so. However, he insists that he is hard of hearing and made no threatening movements toward the officers. Clark contends his conviction must be reversed due to insufficient evidence that his conduct during the handcuffing amounted to "forcible" resistance.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and the reasonable inferences supporting the verdict.
To sustain Clark's conviction for Resisting Law Enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clark knowingly or intentionally forcibly resisted, obstructed, or interfered with a law enforcement officer while the officer was lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer's duties. Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1).
The word "forcibly" modifies "resists, obstructs, or interferes," and force is an element of the offense.
"Indiana courts have grappled with the issue of when resistance, obstruction, or interference rises to the [requisite] level of forcible resistance, obstruction, or interference."
Even a resistance that is not entirely passive may "still fall short of being considered `forcible.'"
On the other hand, placing one's hands on the door casing to resist leaving the house has been considered "forceful."
Here, Assistant Chief Noble testified that Clark had tried to struggle and was "fighting and resisting with me." (Tr. 160.) His testimony is somewhat lacking in specificity. Nonetheless, Huck's cashier Stanley Pender described the struggle as one where Clark "kept trying to push off the car and just wrestle with the police officer." (Tr. 172.) We find this testimony provides sufficient evidence that Clark acted forcibly as required for a conviction for resisting law enforcement.
The State initially charged that Clark had caused bodily injury to Assistant Chief Noble, and had committed Resisting Law Enforcement, as a Class D felony. However, after the presentation of evidence, the State requested that the jury also be instructed on Resisting Law Enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor, having no element of bodily injury. The trial court granted the State's request and Clark argues that the trial court erred in giving the jury a lesser included offense instruction over his objection. According to Clark, "there is no meaningful evidence from which a jury could properly find the lesser offense was committed." Appellant's Br. at 8.
In
Accordingly, where the judge determines that a lesser included offense is inherent in the charged crime, he or she must then determine whether the evidence in the case supports such an instruction.
Resisting Law Enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor, may be established by proof of less than all the elements of Resisting Law Enforcement, as a Class D felony, as charged. The distinguishing element is bodily injury. Thus, Resisting Law Enforcement is an inherently lesser included offense of Resisting Law Enforcement causing bodily injury. Clark and the State dispute whether there was a serious evidentiary dispute regarding the element of bodily injury.
"[I]t is reversible error for a trial court to give a lesser included offense instruction at the request of the State in the absence of a serious evidentiary dispute distinguishing the lesser offense from the greater."
Where a factual finding is made on the existence or lack of a serious evidentiary dispute, we review the trial court's decision for an abuse of discretion.
Here, the evidence of how Assistant Chief Noble sustained his hand injury is conflicting. Initially, Assistant Chief Noble testified that his hand was cut "during the incident." (Tr. 119.) However, he acknowledged that there were multiple "incidents," close in time, one involving Clark and one involving Danny. (Tr. 135.) He had been cognizant of pain when the handcuffs were knocked from his hand, and had formed the opinion that he cut himself when trying to put the handcuffs on Clark. Nonetheless, he admitted that his knowledge was not "exact" and he "didn't really know how the cut happened." (Tr. 166.) From this testimony, the jury could have inferred either that the struggle with Clark caused the injury or that the struggle with Danny caused the injury. There existed a serious evidentiary dispute as to the distinguishing element.
The giving of the instruction on Resisting Law Enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor, is supported by the evidence. The trial court did not commit reversible error in instructing the jury.
There is sufficient evidence to support Clark's conviction. The jury was properly instructed that it could convict Clark of Class A misdemeanor Resisting Law Enforcement as a lesser-included offense of Class D felony Resisting Law Enforcement.
Affirmed.
VAIDIK, J., and BROWN, J., concur.