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.
Feb 26 2014, 5:59 am
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
TIMOTHY O’CONNOR GREGORY F. ZOELLER
O’Connor & Auersch Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
RICHARD C. WEBSTER
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
RITA THOMPSON, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A02-1305-CR-454
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Amy Jones, Judge
Cause No. 49F08-1205-FD-032595
February 26, 2014
MEMORANDUM DECISION – NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MATHIAS, Judge
Rita Thompson (“Thompson”) was convicted in Marion Superior Court of Class D
felony resisting law enforcement and was found to be an habitual offender. Thompson
appeals her conviction and argues that the evidence is insufficient to establish that she
“knowingly or intentionally” fled from a law enforcement officer.
We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
On May 15, 2012, Thompson arrived at her sister’s home in Indianapolis. Family
members observed that Thompson, who suffers from mental illness, had a “wild look”
and was not acting right. Due to her past observations of Thompson, Thompson’s sister
believed that Thompson’s symptoms were manifestations of her mental illness.
Because of Thompson’s mental state, her family did not want her to drive. They
called Thompson’s mental health treatment provider, but the health provider told them to
call 911. Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Officer Kari Pennington (“Officer
Pennington”) responded to the 911 dispatch and proceeded to Thompson’s location.
Officer Pennington arrived at Thompson’s sister’s home, turned on her emergency
lights and parked on the street near the driveway. She observed a group of five people
standing outside near the house. A woman, who she later learned was Thompson, ran
away from the group and got into a vehicle. Thompson pulled out of the driveway, drove
around Officer Pennington’s squad car, and proceeded east on 79th Street at a high rate of
speed.
Officer Pennington activated her siren and followed Thompson. The officer was
just behind Thompson and observed her run through a stop sign. Approximately one-half
2
of a mile from her sister’s home, Thompson pulled her car over. Thompson was
compliant with Officer Pennington after she stopped her vehicle, placing her hands
outside the window of her vehicle at Officer Pennington’s request. Thompson was placed
under arrest, and asked, “[W]hat did you get me for? . . . [F]leeing?” Tr. p. 22; see also
Tr. p. 41. Thompson appeared coherent to Officer Penningtion and answered the
officer’s questions appropriately. Tr. pp. 23, 26.
As a result of the incident, Thompson was charged with Class D felony resisting
law enforcement. The State also alleged that she was an habitual offender. A bench trial
was held on May 2, 2013. At trial, Thompson testified that she was aware of the police
officer’s arrival at her sister’s house and heard the police siren. Tr. p. 40. Thompson
knew she was on 79th Street, and testified that when Officer Pennington arrived, she
pulled out of the driveway and “then [Pennington] started chasing” her. Id. The trial
court determined that Thompson “knowingly or intentionally” fled from Officer
Pennington, and she was found guilty as charged. Tr. pp. 46-47.
Thompson was ordered to serve six months for the Class D felony resisting law
enforcement conviction, and the trial court enhanced that sentence by one and one-half
years for the habitual offender adjudication. Thompson was ordered to serve her
sentence through the Marion County Community Corrections Mental Health Component
with placement in the Addiction Intervention Component. Thompson now appeals.
Standard of Review
When we review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither
reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Chappell v. State, 966
3
N.E.2d 124, 129 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (citing McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124, 126 (Ind.
2005)), trans. denied. Rather, we consider only the probative evidence supporting the
conviction and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. If there is
substantial evidence of probative value from which a reasonable trier of fact could have
drawn the conclusion that the defendant was guilty of the crime charged beyond a
reasonable doubt, then the judgment will not be disturbed. Baumgartner v. State, 891
N.E.2d 1131, 1137 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
Discussion and Decision
Thompson argues that she was unable to form the requisite intent to commit
resisting law enforcement because she suffers from mental illness. A person who
knowingly or intentionally flees “from a law enforcement officer after the officer has, by
visible or audible means identified himself and ordered the person to stop” commits
resisting law enforcement, which is a Class D felony if the person uses a vehicle to
commit the offense. Ind. Code § 35-44-3-3.1
A person engages in conduct “intentionally” if, when she engages in the conduct,
it is her conscious objective to do so. Ind. Code § 35-41-2-2(a). A person engages in
conduct “knowingly” if, when she engages in conduct, she is aware of a high probability
that she is doing so. I.C. § 35-41-2-2(b). Criminal intent can be established by
circumstantial evidence and inferred from the defendant’s conduct and the natural and
1
The relevant statutory provision was recodified at Indiana Code section 35-44.1-3-1, effective July 1,
2012. We cite to the statutory provision in effect on the date of the alleged offense.
4
usual sequence to which such conduct reasonably points. Boring v. State, 982 N.E.2d
1055, 1058 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
Thompson’s own testimony supports the trial court’s determination that
Thompson “knowingly or intentionally” fled from Officer Pennington. Thompson
testified that she was aware of the police officer arriving at her sister’s house and heard
the police siren. Tr. p. 40. Thompson knew she was on 79th Street, and testified that
when Officer Pennington arrived, she pulled out of the driveway and “then [Pennington]
started chasing” her. Id.
After the one-half mile chase, Thompson stopped her vehicle. Officer Pennington
then ordered Thompson to place her hands outside the window of her vehicle, and
Thompson complied. Thompson was also compliant with Officer Pennington’s
instructions thereafter. Thompson was placed under arrest, and asked, “what did you get
me for? . . . [F]leeing?” Tr. p. 22; see also Tr. p. 41. Thompson appeared coherent and
answered Officer Pennington’s questions appropriately. Tr. pp. 23, 26. This evidence
supports the trial court’s finding, that despite her mental illness, Thompson knowingly or
intentionally failed to stop her vehicle after Officer Pennington activated her sirens. For
all of these reasons, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support Thompson’s
Class D felony resisting law enforcement conviction.
Affirmed.
BRADFORD, J., and PYLE, J., concur.
5