Gene Smith v. State of Indiana (NFP)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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. FILED Dec 31 2008, 9:20 am CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: BARBARA J. SIMMONS Oldenburg, Indiana STEVE CARTER Attorney General of Indiana KELLY A. MIKLOS Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA GENE SMITH, Appellant-Defendant, vs. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Plaintiff. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 49A05-0805-CR-273 APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable Linda E. Brown, Judge Cause No. 49F10-0704-CM-73533 December 31, 2008 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY, Judge Gene Smith appeals his conviction of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.1 Finding the evidence sufficient to support his conviction, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On April 26, 2007, Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer Andrew Deddish initiated a traffic stop of a red pick-up truck with three occupants. When Officer Deddish turned on his lights and siren, the truck fled and a police chase ensued. The truck crashed into a garage, and the driver and a female passenger fled on foot. As Officer Deddish ran after the driver, two other officers arrived on the scene. Officer James Martin approached the truck as the remaining passenger, Smith, was attempting to exit the driver s side door. Officer Martin announced he was a police officer and ordered Smith to get on the ground. Smith tried to climb back in across to the passenger side of the vehicle away from me and out that side of the vehicle. (Tr. at 11.) Officer Martin grabbed Smith s leg and arm and tried to pull him out of the driver s side of the truck. As Officer Martin pulled the bottom half of Smith s body out of the truck, Smith grabbed the steering wheel and pulled himself up. (Id. at 12.) Smith continued to try to pull himself back into the vehicle until eventually [Officer Martin] was able to get his arms under control and put handcuffs on him. (Id.) The State charged Smith with resisting law enforcement. After a bench trial, the court entered a judgment of conviction. The court gave Smith a one-year sentence with 165 days suspended. 1 Ind. Code § 35-44-3-3. 2 DISCUSSION AND DECISION Our standard of review for sufficiency of evidence questions is: When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. It is the fact-finder s role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction. To preserve this structure, when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence, they must consider it most favorably to the trial court s ruling. Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146-47 (Ind. 2007) (quotations, citations, and footnote omitted) (emphasis in original). The State charged Smith under Ind. Code § 35-44-3-3(a), which provides a person commits resisting law enforcement if he knowingly or intentionally forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with a law enforcement officer or a person assisting the officer while the officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer s duties. Our Indiana Supreme Court has defined forcible resistance to mean strong, powerful, violent means are used to evade a law enforcement official s rightful exercise of his or her duties. Spangler v. State, 607 N.E.2d 720, 723 (Ind. 1993). In arguing the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction, Smith ignores the evidence most favorable to his conviction and instead argues he simply waited in the truck. (Appellant s Br. at 7.) The evidence favorable to the judgment is that after receiving the order to lie on the ground, Smith attempted to crawl back through the truck. As Officer Martin attempted to pull Smith from the truck, Smith struggled against him, 3 using the steering wheel to pull himself back into the truck. This evidence is sufficient to demonstrate forcible resistance, and we affirm his conviction. Affirmed. NAJAM, J., and ROBB, J., concur. 4
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.
