EVERSOLE v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Matthew Eversole appeals his conviction for Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement,¹ arguing the State failed to present sufficient evidence he forcibly resisted an officer. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On May 23, 2024, law enforcement officers and medical personnel were dispatched to Eversole's home after his mother called 9-1-1 to report Eversole's grandmother was making “choking noises” and having difficulty breathing. Tr. Vol. 2 at 97–98. Eversole's mother also reported Eversole was there and had been “taking ice all day.”² Id. at 98. His mother expressed concern for Eversole because his behavior was unlike his “normal” behavior. Id. at 83. As medical personnel stopped in front of the house, a paramedic saw Eversole come out of the house “very rapidly[,]” acting “very erratic” and making “threatening gestures.” Id. at 98.

[3] When Officer Tyler Smith of the Richmond Police Department arrived, he found Eversole blocking the door to the house. The paramedics were nearby but had not engaged because of Eversole's erratic behavior. From the curb at the bottom of a steep embankment in front of the house, Officer Smith instructed Eversole to step away from the door to allow paramedics to attend to his grandmother. Eversole complied but mimicked pointing an imaginary gun and made shooting noises at Officer Smith. Eversole then charged down the hill and shoved Officer Smith. In doing so, Eversole “put[ ] his hands on” Officer Smith's vest. Id. at 112. Concerned that Eversole was reaching for the weapons on his vest, Officer Smith pushed Eversole, who fell against the embankment. Using the embankment “kind of like a springboard,” Eversole “flipp[ed] around to stand back up” and Officer Smith believed Eversole was going to attack him again. Id. at 114. In response, Officer Smith punched Eversole, momentarily subduing him. Eventually, Officer Smith was able to handcuff Eversole and escort him to a police car.

[4] Sergeant Andrew McClain assisted in getting Eversole into the police car. Sergeant McClain first attempted to conduct a pat-down search of Eversole, but Eversole kept making jerking movements. Eversole managed to grasp Sergeant McClain's arm. He dug his nails in and raked his hand down Sergeant McClain's arm, leaving a scratch.

[5] When officers tried to put Eversole in the car, he refused to cooperate. Sergeant McClain circled to the opposite side of the car and pulled Eversole inside. Eversole refused to sit properly, and Sergeant McClain had to push Eversole “at the hips down into the crease of the seats” to fasten the seat belt. Tr. Vol. 2 at 140. The officers put Eversole in a wrap restraint and transported him to the hospital, where he was examined and, once cleared, arrested.

[6] The State charged Eversole with Count 1, Level 5 felony battery resulting in bodily injury to a public safety official (Officer Smith); Count 2, Level 5 felony battery resulting in bodily injury to a public safety official (Sergeant McClain); Count 3, Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement (Officer Smith); and Count 4, Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement (Sergeant McClain). The State also alleged Eversole was a habitual offender.

[7] Eversole represented himself at his jury trial. The trial court instructed the jury on the lesser included offenses for each count. The jury found Eversole not guilty of Count 2 (battery against Sergeant McClain); guilty of Count 1 as the lesser included Level 6 felony (battery against Officer Smith); guilty of Count 3 as charged (resisting Officer Smith); and guilty of Count 4 as the lesser included Class A misdemeanor (resisting Sergeant McClain). Eversole admitted to being a habitual offender.

[8] At sentencing, the trial court entered judgment of conviction only for Counts 1 and 4 and ordered Eversole to serve a total of five and one-half years in the Indiana Department of Correction.

Sufficient evidence supports Eversole's conviction for Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

[9] Eversole challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for Count 4, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.³ A sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim warrants a “deferential standard of review in which we ‘neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility[.]’ ” Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237, 1244 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Brantley v. State, 91 N.E.3d 566, 570 (Ind. 2018), cert. denied). Instead, we respect the fact-finder's exclusive province to weigh conflicting evidence, Phipps v. State, 90 N.E.3d 1190, 1195 (Ind. 2018), and consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the judgment of the trier of fact, Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1191 (Ind. 2021). We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Teising v. State, 226 N.E.3d 780, 783 (Ind. 2024). It is “not necessary that the evidence ‘overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.’ ” Sallee v. State, 51 N.E.3d 130, 133 (Ind. 2016) (quoting Moore v. State, 652 N.E.2d 53, 55 (Ind. 1995)).

[10] To convict Eversole of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, the State was required to prove Eversole knowingly or intentionally forcibly resisted, obstructed, or interfered with Sergeant McClain, a law enforcement officer who was lawfully engaged in his duties. See I.C. § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1). Eversole argues the State failed to present sufficient evidence he forcibly resisted. He asserts that when he “twisted away from Sergeant McClain, tensed his body and refused to get in the patrol cruiser,” he did not use “strong, powerful, violent means to resist being arrested, particularly where [he] had already been placed under arrest.”⁴ Appellant's Br. at 10 (internal quotation marks omitted). In support, he cites cases in which actions such as (1) turning and pulling away from an officer, (2) tensing one's body and refusing to give officers one's hands to be cuffed, (3) leaning away as an officer attempted to grasp a person, and (4) twisting and turning one's body to avoid an officer's actions, did not constitute forcible resistance. See Appellant's Br. at 9–10.

[11] A person “forcibly resists” law enforcement when he or she uses “strong, powerful, violent means” to evade an officer's rightful exercise of his or her duties. Spangler v. State, 607 N.E.2d 720, 723 (Ind. 1993). “[A]ny action to resist must be done with force” to constitute resisting law enforcement. Id. at 724. Still, the force involved “need not rise to the level of mayhem.” Graham v. State, 903 N.E.2d 963, 965 (Ind. 2009). For example, a panel of this Court held a defendant's acts of pushing away with his shoulders while cursing and yelling during a search and “stiffen[ing] up” to prevent being put in a vehicle constituted forcible resistance. Johnson v. State, 833 N.E.2d 518–19 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). In this way, the element of force “may be satisfied with even a modest exertion of strength, power, or violence.” Walker v. State, 998 N.E.2d 724, 727 (Ind. 2013). Actual physical contact between the defendant and the officer is not required, and a conviction can be sustained where there is only an “active threat of such strength, power, or violence when that threat impedes the officer's ability to lawfully execute his or her duties.” Id.

[12] Here, Sergeant McClain was performing his lawful duties, and Eversole attempted to evade them. Eversole twisted his body away from Sergeant McClain, fought the pat-down search, flexed his body to avoid entering the police car, forced Sergeant McClain to push him down into the car seat, and needed to be placed in a wrap restraint for safety. This was sufficient evidence of forcible resistance to sustain his conviction. Eversole's arguments to the contrary are requests for us to reweigh the evidence, which we cannot do.

Conclusion

[13] Sufficient evidence supports Eversole's conviction for resisting law enforcement.

[14] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1 (2021).

2.   “Ice” is a term sometimes used to refer to methamphetamine. See id.

3.   Eversole does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for Count 1, Level 6 felony battery on a public safety official, or his adjudication as a habitual offender.

4.   Eversole was not arrested until he was cleared by the hospital.

Kenworthy, Judge.

Foley, J., and Scheele, J., concur.