Weaver v. State
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Indiana?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Indiana. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Defendant was convicted for refusing to identify himself to a law enforcement official. A majority of the court of appeals reversed, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction. One judge dissented and would have affirmed the trial court. The Supreme Court granted transfer, thus vacating the judgment of the court of appeals. The Court agreed with the dissenting opinion and affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant’s conviction under Ind. Code 34-28-5-3.5.
Download PDF
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Lisa Diane Manning Manning Law Office Danville, Indiana Gregory F. Zoeller Attorney General of Indiana Paula J. Beller Stephen R. Creason Deputy Attorneys General Indianapolis, Indiana ______________________________________________________________________________ FILED In the Indiana Supreme Court Aug 04 2016, 4:00 pm CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court _________________________________ No. 32S04-1608-CR-415 COREY T. WEAVER, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee (Plaintiff below). _________________________________ Appeal from the Hendricks Superior Court, No. 32D02-1410-CM-001002 The Honorable Rhett M. Stuard, Judge _________________________________ On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 32A04-1508-CR-1110 _________________________________ August 4, 2016 Per Curiam. A majority of the Court of Appeals reversed Defendant Corey T. Weaver’s conviction for refusing to identify himself to a law enforcement official, finding insufficient evidence to support the conviction. We agree with the dissenting opinion that the evidence was sufficient, and therefore grant transfer and affirm the trial court. On the night of October 1, 2014, Hendricks County Sheriff’s Deputy Samuel Chandler observed a vehicle with an inoperable license plate light, and he initiated a traffic stop. The vehicle stopped, and Deputy Chandler approached it and asked the driver for his license and registration. After the driver was unable to produce his license, Deputy Chandler asked the driver for his address and then for his name. The driver avoided answering the request for his address, and evaded the questions about his name—eventually disclosing his last name as “Mr. Weaver” but otherwise representing, “I don’t have a particular name.” Tr. at 11, 57. After finally admitting his mother calls him “Corey,” Weaver then repeatedly refused to provide his date of birth, even after being handcuffed and detained for refusing to identify himself. After a total of approximately sixteen minutes of questioning, Weaver finally provided his date of birth. Deputy Weaver then was able to determine that Weaver’s license was suspended. The State charged Weaver with, among other things, refusing to identify himself in violation of Indiana Code section 34-28-5-3.5, which provides as follows: A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person’s: (1) name, address, and date of birth; or (2) driver’s license, if in the person’s possession; to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor. After a bench trial he was convicted as charged, and the trial court imposed a $100 fine for the refusal-to-identify conviction. A majority of the Court of Appeals reversed, finding insufficient evidence that Weaver violated the statute. Weaver v. State, 53 N.E.3d 1225 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Judge Altice dissented, and would have affirmed the trial court. Id. at 1229. We agree with Judge Altice that the evidence was sufficient to support Weaver’s conviction under Indiana Code section 34-28-5-3.5. Accordingly, we grant transfer, see Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A), and affirm the judgment of the trial court. All Justices concur. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
