Marilyn Carter v. State of Indiana ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
    this Memorandum Decision shall not be
    regarded as precedent or cited before any
    court except for the purpose of
    establishing the defense of res judicata,
    collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:                            ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
    TIMOTHY J. BURNS                                   GREGORY F. ZOELLER
    Indianapolis, Indiana                              Attorney General of Indiana
    RICHARD WEBSTER
    Deputy Attorney General
    FILED
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Jan 17 2013, 9:26 am
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA                                     CLERK
    of the supreme court,
    court of appeals and
    tax court
    MARILYN CARTER,                                    )
    )
    Appellant-Defendant,                        )
    )
    vs.                                 )       No. 49A02-1206-CR-457
    )
    STATE OF INDIANA,                                  )
    )
    Appellee-Plaintiff.                         )
    APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
    The Honorable Barbara Collins, Judge
    The Honorable Deborah Shook, Commissioner
    Cause No.49F08-1203-CM-19627
    January 17, 2013
    MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    KIRSCH, Judge
    Marilyn Carter appeals her convictions for resisting law enforcement1 and battery,2
    both as Class A misdemeanors, contending that the evidence was not sufficient to support
    the convictions. We affirm.
    On March 23, 2012, Carter was at Arlington High School in Indianapolis for a
    conference with school officials regarding her daughter who was a student at the school.
    While at the school, Carter became loud and boisterous and refused the request of
    Indianapolis Public Schools Police Officer Marzetta Jenkins to leave the building. After
    Carter pushed Officer Jenkins, Officer Jenkins and another officer attempted to place
    handcuffs on Carter. Carter struggled with the officers and swung her arms. The officers
    gained control, handcuffed Carter, and placed her under arrest for resisting law
    enforcement and battery.
    On appeal, Carter contends that the evidence is insufficient to support her
    convictions. When reviewing the claim of sufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh
    the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Jones v. State, 
    783 N.E.2d 1132
    ,
    1139 (Ind. 2003). We look only to the probative evidence supporting the judgment and
    the reasonable inferences therein to determine whether a reasonable trier of fact could
    conclude the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 
    Id.
     If there is substantial
    evidence of probative value to support the conviction, it will not be set aside. 
    Id.
    To prove battery as a Class A misdemeanor, the State was required to prove that
    Carter knowingly or intentionally touched Officer Jenkins in a “rude, insolent or angry
    manner.” 
    Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1
    . At trial, both police officers testified that Carter yelled
    1
    See 
    Ind. Code § 35-44-3-3
    (a), now 
    Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3
    -1.
    2
    See 
    Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1
    .
    2
    and lunged at Officer Jenkins and then pushed her causing her to lose her balance. Tr. at
    18, 27. Although Carter claims that, in pushing Officer Jenkins, she was protecting her
    daughter and was not rude, insolent, or angry, it was for the trier of fact to consider such
    claim, to determine the credibility of the witnesses, and to resolve any conflicts in the
    evidence. Viewed consistently with our standard of review, this evidence is clearly
    sufficient to support the battery conviction.
    To prove resisting law enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor, the State was
    required to prove that Carter knowingly and forcibly resisted, obstructed, or interfered
    with an officer while said officer was lawfully engaged in the execution of her duties as a
    law enforcement officer. See 
    Ind. Code § 35-44-3-3
    . Both officers testified that they
    attempted to place Carter in handcuffs after she pushed Officer Jenkins and that Carter
    yelled, swung her arms, physically resisted the officers’ attempt to put her in handcuffs,
    and then continued to resist their efforts to take her from the attendance office to the
    police office.
    Our Supreme Court has held that, while “ ‘[i]t is error as a matter of law to
    conclude . . . that ‘forcibly resists’ includes all actions that are not passive[,]” Graham v.
    State, 
    903 N.E.2d 963
    , 965 (Ind. 2009) (quoting Spangler v. State, 
    607 N.E.2d 720
    , 724
    (Ind. 1993)), it has also made clear that “ ‘[t]he force involved need not rise to the level
    of mayhem.’ ” 
    Id.
     Carter was not convicted for passive acts. Again, viewed consistently
    with our standard of review, this evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.
    Affirmed.
    MATHIAS, J., and CRONE, J., concur.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 49A02-1206-CR-457

Filed Date: 1/17/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021