MURDOCK v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Jaiye Murdock (“Murdock”) was convicted after a bench trial of resisting law enforcement ¹ as a Class A misdemeanor and public intoxication as a Class B misdemeanor.² Murdock appeals, claiming that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his convictions. Specifically, Murdock argues that there was insufficient evidence that he (1) forcibly resisted arrest and (2) was intoxicated and a danger to himself. Identifying sufficient evidence, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On January 20, 2024, Officer Scott Emminger (“Officer Emminger”) of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department was dispatched to Murdock's residence to investigate Murdock's missing vehicle. Officer Emminger arrived at approximately 10:50 a.m. Upon arrival, he noticed a vehicle parked near the residence with a Tennessee license plate that had a broken-out window. Officer Emminger entered the residence and took a stolen vehicle report from Murdock and a female companion. Officer Emminger observed that Murdock “was kind of slurring his words and eventually went and sat down on a couch and swayed back and forth as he sat there which seemed to be a sign of intoxication.” Tr. Vol. 2 p.10. Further, Officer Emminger noticed “a strong odor of alcohol” emanating from Murdock's side of the room. Id.

[3] Officer Emminger obtained most of the information regarding the stolen vehicle from the female and not Murdock. “[Murdock] was upset that [Officer Emminger] wasn't ․ speaking to him more.” Id. at 12. Murdock wanted to tell the officer more information about the car, but Officer Emminger told him that he had everything he needed. After giving Murdock the report number, Officer Emminger proceeded back to his patrol vehicle.

[4] After Officer Emminger returned to his patrol vehicle, he began investigating the status of the vehicle with the Tennessee license plate. While Officer Emminger was sitting in his patrol vehicle, Murdock emerged from his residence “angry ․ [and] on the phone kind of yelling loudly into the phone.” Id. Next, Murdock “walked directly out into the street while looking at [Officer Emminger] without any concern for oncoming traffic ․” Id. at 12–13. Officer Emminger noticed that, despite it being only three degrees Fahrenheit outside, Murdock was only wearing “a pair of slides, socks, pajama pants, a light shirt, and a light and completely open jacket, no gloves or hat either.” Id. at 13.

[5] Murdock approached the driver's side of the patrol vehicle and was screaming at Officer Emminger and tapping on the window to get him to roll his window down. Murdock asked Officer Emminger for his badge number, and the officer provided his radio number as a better identifier and reminded Murdock that “it's on the green card that I already gave you.” Id. Officer Emminger rolled his window back up on his patrol vehicle. Meanwhile, Murdock continued to “scream and berate [him].” Id. Eventually, Murdock began pushing against the patrol vehicle. At that point, due to Murdock being “underdressed” for the weather, in the “middle of the street,” and “interfering with an ongoing investigation,” Officer Emminger placed Murdock under arrest for public intoxication. Id. at 14.

[6] During the arrest, Officer Emminger was able to secure Murdock's left hand in a handcuff but struggled to secure Murdock's right hand. When Officer Emminger attempted to place Murdock in handcuffs to arrest him, Murdock “sort of drug [sic] me around to the hood of the car around the front—past the front driver's side headlight so we had moved at least [sic] far while [I was]] trying to secure his right hand behind his back.” Id. at 15. Murdock failed to comply with numerous commands from Officer Emminger ordering Murdock to put his hands behind his back “at least three times” while attempting to arrest Murdock. Id. at 22.

[7] On January 27, 2024, the State charged Murdock with resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor and public intoxication as a Class B misdemeanor. A bench trial was held on May 21, 2024, at the conclusion of which the trial court found Murdock guilty as charged.

[8] The trial court immediately proceeded to sentencing. The trial court entered a judgment of conviction on both counts and sentenced Murdock to 360 days, with 356 suspended to probation for the resisting law enforcement count and to 90 days, with 86 days suspended to probation for the public intoxication count. The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently. Murdock now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[9] Murdock challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions for resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor and public intoxication as a Class B misdemeanor. “Sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims ․ warrant a deferential standard, in which we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility.” Powell v. State, 151 N.E.3d 256, 262 (Ind. 2020) (citing Perry v. State, 638 N.E.2d 1236, 1242 (Ind. 1994)). “We consider instead only the probative evidence and the reasonable inferences supporting the trial court's [judgment],” affirming “unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Fix v. State, 186 N.E.3d 1134, 1138 (Ind. 2022) (Jackson v. State, 50 N.E.3d 767, 770 (Ind. 2016)).

I. Resisting Law Enforcement

[10] Murdock was convicted of resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor. Indiana Code section 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1) provides that:

A person who 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; ․ commits resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor[.]

“[A person] ‘forcibly resists’ law enforcement when strong, powerful, violent means are used to evade a law enforcement official's rightful exercise of [their] duties.” Walker v. State, 998 N.E.2d 724, 726–27 (Ind. 2013) (quoting Spangler v. State, 607 N.E.2d 720, 723 (Ind. 1993)). “The element may be satisfied with even a modest exertion of strength, power, or violence[.]” Id. at 727. But, turning and pulling away from an officer's grasp, K.W. v. State, 984 N.E.2d 610, 611 (Ind. 2013), “do[es] not rise to the level of forcible resistance,” Couch v. State, 224 N.E.3d 317, 320 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023).

[11] Murdock challenges only the sufficiency of evidence that he forcibly resisted Officer Emminger, arguing that the “testimony of Officer Emminger simply does not rise to the level of strong, violent force being exercised by [Murdock].” Appellant's Br. p. 10. The evidence most favorable to the judgment established that, when Officer Emminger attempted to place Murdock in handcuffs to arrest him, Murdock moved away from Officer Emminger, pulling or dragging Officer Murdock several feet around the hood of his vehicle. Officer Emminger testified that he told Murdock to put his hands behind his back “at least three times” during the course of the arrest. Tr. Vol. 2 p. 22. The extended struggle between Officer Emminger and Murdock can be heard from the audio from Officer Emminger's body camera. A reasonable fact finder could conclude, based on Officer Emminger's testimony, the corroborating audio evidence, and the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom, that Murdock forcibly resisted, obstructed, or interfered with Officer Emminger while he was lawfully engaged in the execution of his duties. See Sutton v. State, 167 N.E.3d 800, 801 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021).

[12] Murdock argues that his resistance was similar to the degree of force at issue in Couch, 224 N.E.3d 317, where we found that pulling away from an officer was insufficient to support a conviction for resisting arrest. In Couch, the defendant “attempted to pull away from officers, resisted efforts to move his left arm from in front of his body to the back of his body, and ‘twisted and turned’ in a struggle with [the officer].” Id. at 320. A fellow officer testified that the defendant “kind of passive[ly] resist[ed] and flared up his arms in an attempt to avoid being arrested.” Id. The court held that the evidence failed to show that the defendant used even “a modest exertion of strength, power, or violence.” See Wallker, 998 N.E.2d at 727. Here, while the officer had ahold of Murdock and was attempting to handcuff him, Murdock resisted by moving away from the officer and dragging him several feet around the hood of his car. Murdock's actions were not passive and did not merely consist of pulling away or twisting. Murdock used sufficient force and power to drag Officer Emminger several feet. Murdock's actions exceeded the standard of a “modest exertion of strength, power, or violence” necessary to establish forcible resistance. Id. Sufficient evidence was presented to support Murdock's conviction for resisting law enforcement, and his arguments to the contrary are requests to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Powell, 151 N.E.3d at 262.

II. Public Intoxication

[13] Murdock was also convicted of public intoxication as a Class B misdemeanor. Indiana Code section 7.1-5-1-3(a)(1) provides that “it is a Class B misdemeanor for a person to be in a public place or a place of public resort in a state of intoxication caused by the person's use of alcohol or a controlled substance ․, if the person ․ endangers the person's life[.]”

[14] Murdock contends that insufficient evidence was presented to support his conviction of public intoxication because there was no evidence that he was “in a state of intoxication at the time of his arrest,” and there is “an absence of evidence that [Murdock] placed his own well[-]being in jeopardy by coming outside and into the street.” Appellant's Br. pp. 11, 12.

[15] The evidence favorable to the judgment reflected that when Officer Emminger observed Murdock slurring his words and swaying back and forth, he detected the odor of alcohol emanating from Murdock's direction. Officer Emminger further testified that, “in [his] experience in dealing with people who have been under the effects of alcohol intoxication, there is often a pause in conversation when they have difficulty, and they want to restart the conversation over and over again.” Tr. Vol. 2 p. 14. During Officer Emminger's interview with Murdock, based on his training and experience, he determined that Murdock was impaired and intoxicated because, “he'd say Officer ․ and we would just wait, and wait, and wait for him to formulate a sentence and then start with the sentence or maybe the sentence didn't ever come[.]” Id. Despite Murdock's claims to the contrary, the State presented sufficient evidence to support a reasonable inference that Murdock was intoxicated. See Sutton, 167 N.E.3d at 801 (“[E]vidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the [judgment.]”). Therefore, the State presented sufficient evidence to prove that Murdock was intoxicated.

[16] Murdock also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence of his endangerment. During the bench trial, Officer Emminger testified when Murdock emerged from his home, “he was woefully underdressed for three-degree temperature outside, so I did have some concern for that.” Tr. Vol. 2 p. 14. Furthermore, Officer Emminger observed Murdock walked out into the street “without any concern for oncoming traffic.” Id. at 12–13. Ultimately, Murdock's assertions ask us to reweigh evidence and judge witness credibility, which we will not do. See Powell, 151 N.E.3d at 262. Sufficient evidence was presented to support the element of endangerment and Murdock's conviction for public intoxication.

Conclusion

[17] The State presented sufficient evidence that Murdock committed Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor public intoxication.

[18] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1).

2.   I.C. § 7.1-5-1-3(a)(1).

Foley, Judge.

Bailey, J. and Bradford, J., concur.