Stephen Michael Ford, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Statement of the Case

[1] Stephen Michael Ford appeals after a bench trial from his convictions of one count of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and one count of Class A misdemeanor impersonation of a public servant. He claims the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for continuance on the morning of trial to pursue a belated insanity defense. And he argues there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for resisting law enforcement. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ford's motion for continuance to pursue an insanity defense. However, we agree there is insufficient evidence to support Ford's conviction of resisting law enforcement and reverse. Therefore, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On April 2, 2025, a fully uniformed Greenfield police officer stopped at a Speedway gas station to purchase a drink when Ford engaged him in conversation. Ford represented to the officer that he was a federal agent tasked with investigating and ensuring government efficiency and challenged the officer's use of his radio while in the store. Ford referenced an executive order prohibiting radio use and indicated that he was working an active investigation. The officer radioed to dispatch that he encountered a suspicious person, prompting additional officers to arrive and assist. Ford reiterated his claims to the assisting officers and told one officer that he was a deputized U.S. Marshal.

[3] When an officer asked the clerk if she wanted Ford to remain in the store, she shook her head indicating no. The officers then asked Ford to produce his federal law enforcement credentials. Instead, Ford produced an Indiana identification card. The identification card led an officer to discover that Ford had an active arrest warrant from Florida. The officer ordered him to turn around and place his hands behind his back. When Ford refused to comply, the officers decided to go “hands-on” and employ a high-low team tactic to bring Ford to the ground to be handcuffed. Tr. Vol. II, p. 20. When the officer going high reached for his arms, Ford “sucked his arms in[,]”, meaning he “tensed up and pulled them” to his chest. Id. at 38. The officers physically forced Ford to the ground and placed him in handcuffs.

[4] The State charged Ford with Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement and Class A misdemeanor impersonation of a public servant. Ford's request for a speedy trial was granted. On the morning of trial, Ford requested a continuance to allow him to be evaluated in furtherance of his pursuit of an insanity defense. The trial court denied the request, citing Ford's speedy trial request, the presence of witnesses, and the parties’ preparedness for trial.

[5] At trial, Ford testified that he suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and that at the time of the offenses he had not been taking his medication for approximately six days. The trial court found Ford guilty of both counts and sentenced him to serve three hundred and sixty-five days for each count to be served concurrently.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Ford appeals, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his day-of-trial continuance request to pursue a belated insanity defense. He also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for resisting law enforcement.

A. Continuance and Belated Insanity Defense

[7] Ford's request for a speedy trial had been granted. But on June 11, the morning of his bench trial, Ford orally requested a continuance so he could be evaluated in furtherance of an insanity defense. He says he is entitled to a new trial on his conviction for Class A misdemeanor impersonation of a public servant, contending the court abused its discretion in denying the continuance. He says the court did not evaluate the harms to the parties brought about by any delay therefrom. Appellant's Br. p. 10. And he argues his “right to plead and then subsequently present an insanity defense was a substantial interest and critical to his defense[,]” thus establishing a greater harm to him than to the State. Id. at 12.

[8] There is no dispute that Ford waited until the morning of his trial to orally move for a continuance based on the absence of evidence in support of his insanity defense. “When, as here, a defendant moves for a continuance not required by statute, we review the court's decision to deny the request for an abuse of discretion.” Ramirez v. State, 186 N.E.3d 89, 96 (Ind. 2022). “In this context, whether the court abused its discretion is potentially a two-step inquiry.” Id. “We first determine whether the trial court ‘properly evaluated and compared’ the parties’ ‘diverse interests’ that would be impacted ‘by altering the schedule.’ ” Id. (quoting Vaughn v. State, 590 N.E.2d 134, 135 (Ind. 1992)). “If not, we assess whether the court's denial resulted in prejudice.” Id. “A defendant can establish prejudice by making specific showings as to why additional time was necessary and how it would have benefitted the defense.” Id.

[9] Here, the court observed that the trial was scheduled that day because of Ford's speedy trial request. And Ford was in the best position to have his mental health evaluated between the filing of the charges and the speedy trial date to determine the viability of an insanity defense. But Ford did nothing to that end. Further, the court noted that all parties were present, including the State's witnesses, and that both parties were prepared for trial. Thus, the record supports the conclusion that the court properly evaluated and compared the parties’ diverse interests when denying the continuance.

[10] And, even if we were to find in Ford's favor on the first step, the second step of the inquiry would provide him no relief. Ford has not demonstrated any prejudice from the denial of his last-minute continuance request. Ford has not suggested that a continuance would have allowed him to present an insanity defense, let alone a successful one. Instead, and at best, Ford argued that he might have been able to present the defense if evaluated. Appellant's Br. pp. 14-15. The trial court did not err by denying Ford's request for a continuance to pursue an insanity defense. Thus, he is not entitled to a new trial.

B. Sufficiency of the Evidence—Resisting Law Enforcement

[11] Ford argues that the State did not present sufficient evidence to establish that he forcibly resisted law enforcement. To convict Ford of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, the State was required to establish that Ford, knowingly or intentionally forcibly resisted, obstructed, or interfered with a law enforcement officer while the officer was lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer's duties. See Indiana Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1) (2024) (offense); see also, Appellant's App. Vol. II, p. 8 (information).

[12] Our standard of review for claims of insufficient evidence is well established.

Sufficiency-of-the-evidence claims ․ warrant a deferential standard, in which we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility. Rather, we consider only the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences drawn from that evidence. We will affirm a conviction if there is substantial evidence of probative value that would lead a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Powell v. State, 151 N.E.3d 256, 262-63 (Ind. 2020) (internal citations omitted).

[13] The cases discussing what constitutes forcibly resisting, obstructing, or interfering with law enforcement vary such that there are cases favoring both parties’ positions. See Graham v. State, 903 N.E.2d 963, 966 (Ind. 2009) (held refusing to present hands to be handcuffed after officers carried defendant off porch not sufficient evidence of force); Spangler v. State, 607 N.E.2d 720, 724 (Ind. 1993) (held insufficient evidence where no strength, power, or violence directed towards law enforcement official); Brooks v. State, 113 N.E.3d 782, 785 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (held tensing up, pulling away, not presenting arms to officer for cuffing not sufficient evidence of forcible resistance); But see, Graham, 903 N.E.2d at 965 (“The force involved need not rise to the level of mayhem.”); Tyson v. State, 140 N.E.3d 374, 378 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (held refusal to take hands out of pockets which clearly contained items amounted to threatening gesture presenting imminent danger of bodily injury to officer sufficient), trans. denied; Johnson v. State, 833 N.E.2d 516, 518 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (held sufficient evidence where defendant turned away and pushed away from officer with his shoulders). These holdings reflect the fact-sensitive nature of these determinations. See A.C. v. State, 929 N.E.2d 907, 910 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (given no bright line guidance in prior decisions “based on the fact-sensitive nature of these cases, a simple comparison of the facts of this case with those of previous cases will lead us to a just result.”).

[14] In the present case, we conclude that there was insufficient evidence of force to support Ford's conviction. We note that the officers’ use of force to effectuate the arrest does not establish that the defendant forcibly resisted. See Colvin v. State, 916 N.E.2d 306, 309 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (insufficient evidence where defendant did not comply with commands and officers used force to execute arrest), trans. denied. That leaves us with Ford's behavior. The officers described Ford as having “an aggressive posture and attitude” and had a “[b]laded stance[ ]” all while proclaiming that the officers could not arrest him because he was a federal agent. Tr. Vol. II, pp. 33-34. Ford told officers he would not comply with their commands. The officers decided to employ a high-low team tactic to bring Ford down to the ground and handcuff him. According to the officers, Ford “tensed up and pulled” his arms to his chest when an officer attempted to “go high,” or gain control of the top part of Ford's body. Id. at 38.

[15] We find the facts of this case more closely align with those of Graham, Spangler, and Brooks. There is evidence that Ford assumed a “[b]laded stance.” Id. at 34. However, there was no force used by Ford against the officers. Having an aggressive posture, and tensing up and pulling his arms to his chest after the officers begin the high-low tactic “demonstrates obnoxious disrespect for authority, but not the use of any force” by Ford. See Graham, 903 N.E.2d at 964. Therefore, we conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction for Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Conclusion

[16] We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ford's day-of-trial request for a continuance. However, we agree that there is insufficient evidence to support Ford's conviction for Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. Consequently, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

[17] Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Shepard, Senior Judge.

Tavitas, J., and Weissmann, J., concur.