BOYER v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Anthony Boyer appeals his conviction for Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. Boyer raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In the evening hours of March 2, 2024,¹ Jefferson County Sheriff's Department Officer Joshua Taylor initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle being operated by Boyer after Officer Taylor had observed Boyer commit multiple traffic infractions. Other officers arrived on the scene to assist Officer Taylor.

[3] While Officer Taylor was preparing citations for Boyer's infractions, Officer L. Spry ² asked Boyer to step out of the vehicle. Officer Logan Gray then had his canine walk around Boyer's vehicle. The canine indicated that Boyer's vehicle contained contraband. Officer Gray thus prepared to search Boyer's vehicle and walked toward the trunk area. At that time, Boyer “began shouting” at Officer Gray. Tr. Vol. 2, p. 28. Boyer then placed himself “in very close proximity” to Officer Gray. Id. Officer Gray instructed Boyer to stand by Officer Taylor's vehicle; in response, Boyer “shouted ‘watch how you're f**king talking to me’ ” and “made a head gesture” while moving closer still to Officer Gray. Id. Officer Gray observed that Boyer made his statement “through gritted teeth” and interpreted Boyer's conduct to be “aggressive behavior.” Id.

[4] Officer Gray then placed a hand on Boyer's right shoulder “to turn him around ․ to place him into handcuffs.” Id. at 29. At that point, Boyer “physically resisted” Officer Gray by “attempting to push against” his grasp and “turn away from the direction” toward which Officer Gray was trying to direct him. Id. Still, Officer Gray got Boyer “to the vehicle,” at which point Boyer tried to “pull his hands up in front of his body, tensed his body up, was pushing against [Officer Gray] with his core to try to rise away from the vehicle.” Id. Two other officers intervened to assist Officer Gray, and, “after a few moments,” Officer Gray was able to get handcuffs on Boyer. Id.

[5] The State charged Boyer with Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. After a bench trial at which Officers Taylor and Gray testified, the court found Boyer guilty. The court then entered its judgment of conviction and sentenced Boyer accordingly.

[6] This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[7] On appeal, Boyer asserts that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his conviction. For challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider only the probative evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom that support the judgment of the trier of fact. Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1191 (Ind. 2021). We will neither reweigh the evidence nor judge witness credibility. Id. We will affirm a conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[8] To prove that Boyer committed Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, the State was required to show that he knowingly or intentionally “forcibly resist[ed], obstruct[ed], or interfere[ed] with a law enforcement officer or a person assisting the officer while the officer [wa]s lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer's duties ․” Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1) (2023). Boyer argues that the State failed to show that he acted “knowingly” and “forcibly.” Appellant's Br. at 9-10.

[9] We reject Boyer's assertion that he did not act knowingly. A person acts “knowingly” if, “when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability that he is doing so.” I.C. § 35-41-2-2. Boyer's argument is that the officers did not tell him he was under arrest at the time he was alleged to have resisted them. But no such statement was required; the officers had probable cause to search the vehicle, and, when they attempted to do so, Boyer physically and verbally imposed himself against them and did not comply with Officer Gray's instruction to stand by Officer Taylor's vehicle. At that point, Officer Gray placed a hand on Boyer's shoulder and began to move Boyer away from the trunk area of his vehicle. And, from there, Boyer physically resisted Officer Gray and the other officers. A reasonable fact-finder could conclude from the evidence that Boyer knowingly resisted the officers.

[10] We also reject Boyer's argument that his actions were not done “forcibly.” In particular, Boyer asserts that the State's witnesses did not provide a “detailed description of ․ the level of force being used” by Boyer, and “[t]here was no evidence presented that [he] pushed, kicked, hit, or slapped officers ․” Appellant's Br. at 11. But, as our Supreme Court has explained:

This Court has held that “one ‘forcibly resists’ law enforcement when strong, powerful, violent means are used to evade a law enforcement official's rightful exercise of his or her duties.” Spangler[ v. State], 607 N.E.2d [720,] 723 [(Ind. 1993)]. The level of force certainly “need not rise to the level of mayhem.” Graham v. State, 903 N.E.2d 963, 965 (Ind. 2009). Yet the statute does not demand complete passivity, either. Merely walking away from a law-enforcement encounter, Spangler, 607 N.E.2d at 724, leaning away from an officer's grasp, A.C. v. State, 929 N.E.2d 907, 912 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), or “twisting and turning ‘a little bit’ ” against an officer's actions, Ajabu v. State, 704 N.E.2d 494, 495-96 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), do not establish “forcible” resistance.

K.W. v. State, 984 N.E.2d 610, 612 (Ind. 2013).

[11] The record here does not show that Boyer merely walked away, leaned away, or twisted or turned “a little bit” from the officers. See id. Rather, the record shows that Boyer had to be forced onto the vehicle to be placed in handcuffs; that he attempted to pull his hands up to resist having them handcuffed; that he attempted to pull himself up off the vehicle at that time; and that multiple officers had to physically subdue him to place the handcuffs on him. The State thus presented sufficient evidence to show that Boyer “forcibly” resisted the officers.

[12] For all of these reasons, we affirm Boyer's conviction for Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The probable cause affidavit states the traffic stop happened on March 2, but the officers testified at trial it happened on March 3. See Appellant's App. Vol. 2, p. 17; Tr. Vol. 2, p. 26. The difference is immaterial to our opinion.

2.   Officer Spry's first name is not in the record.

Mathias, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Pyle, J., concur.