Jefferson Jean-Baptiste v. State of Indiana

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Suzy St. John Ruth Ann Johnson Marion County Public Defender Agency Indianapolis, IN Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General of Indiana Stephen R. Creason Michael Gene Worden Deputy Attorneys General Indianapolis, Indiana ______________________________________________________________________________ In the Indiana Supreme Court _________________________________ FILED Oct 03 2017, 11:39 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court No. 49S02-1707-CR-00500 JEFFERSON JEAN-BAPTISTE, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee (Plaintiff below). _________________________________ Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, No. 49G19-1604-CM-12899 The Honorable Rebekah F. Pierson-Treacy, Judge _________________________________ On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-1608-CR-1798 _________________________________ October 3, 2017 Per Curiam. After a bench trial in Marion Superior Court, Jefferson Jean-Baptiste was convicted of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. The Court of Appeals reversed Jean-Baptiste’s conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence. The Court of Appeals also sua sponte addressed a constitutional question, and reversed for that reason as well. We granted the State’s petition to transfer by order dated July 27, 2017. We agree with the Court of Appeals that reversal is warranted because the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support Jean-Baptiste’s conviction. We therefore summarily affirm all portions of the Court of Appeals opinion except its sua sponte constitutional analysis and holding, which remain vacated. See Appellate Rule 58(A). In keeping with our longstanding principle of constitutional avoidance, we decline to address that issue. See Citimortgage v. Barabas, 975 N.E.2d 805, 818 (Ind. 2012). 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.