BEVERLY v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Christian Beverly appeals his convictions for Class A misdemeanors criminal trespass and resisting law enforcement, alleging the evidence was insufficient to support each conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On April 21, 2025, off-duty Marion County Sheriff's Office Corporal Aaron Berry was working as a security officer at the Indiana Convention Center in Indianapolis. The convention center was closed to the public that day. While patrolling on a golf cart, Cpl. Berry observed a man, later identified as Beverly, sitting on a bench in the hallway, looking down at his phone and wearing headphones.

[3] Cpl. Berry drove the golf cart up to Beverly and asked Beverly if he had an employee or event identification badge. Beverly “ignored” Cpl. Berry and “brushed [him] off[.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 12. Cpl. Berry asked Beverly for identification again, and Beverly continued to look at his phone. Cpl. Berry then told Beverly, “[I]f you're going to refuse to provide an employee ID, I'm going to have to ask you to leave.” Id. at 13. Beverly continued to look down and ignore the officer, so Cpl. Berry “told him that if he was refusing to leave[, he] was going to place [Beverly] under arrest for trespassing.” Id. at 13; see also State's Ex. 1 at 00:05-00:38.

[4] Cpl. Berry displayed his handcuffs and asked Beverly to stand. While still wearing his headphones, Beverly remained seated, looked up from his phone, and asked, “What am I being arrested for.” State's Ex. 1 at 00:25-00:38. Cpl. Berry explained that he was under arrest for criminal trespassing and told Beverly to stand again, but Beverly remained seated. After Cpl. Berry moved closer, he told Beverly to place his hands behind his back, but Beverly refused. Eventually, Beverly stood up and put his hands in his pockets. Cpl. Berry told Beverly, “Don't go inside your pockets[,]” but Beverly attempted to put his hands back in his pockets again and asked Cpl. Berry if he could remove his headphones. Id. at 1:00-1:36.

[5] After Cpl. Berry was able to “gain control of ․ [Beverly's] left wrist,” Beverly “stiffened his arm and wouldn't allow [Cpl. Berry] to maneuver it to the back ․ to finish placing the handcuffs.” Tr. Vol. II p. 13; see also State's Ex. 1 at 1:16-1:43. Cpl. Berry attempted to maneuver Beverly's uncuffed arm several times, but Beverly “kept on straightening his arm ․ with strength [and] pull[ed] it back forward.” Tr. Vol. II p. 14. Cpl. Berry drew his taser to attempt to gain Beverly's compliance and told Beverly he was resisting arrest.¹ Eventually, Cpl. Berry was able to handcuff Beverly. Over two minutes passed between the time that Cpl. Berry gained control of Beverly's left wrist and the time he secured the handcuffs to Beverly's wrists. State's Ex. 1 at 1:18-3:24. Cpl. Berry took Beverly outside the convention center, where Beverly refused to provide his name multiple times. Another officer arrived and attempted to scan Beverly's fingerprints, but the scan was unsuccessful because of Beverly's “lack of cooperation.” Tr. Vol. II p. 22.

[6] The State charged Beverly with Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class C misdemeanor refusing to give identifying information. Following a bench trial on July 14, Beverly was found guilty as charged. The court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 180 days with four days of credit for time served and 176 days suspended to probation. Beverly now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Beverly challenges whether the State presented sufficient evidence to prove he committed criminal trespass and resisting law enforcement.² Our standard of review is well settled:

For sufficiency of the evidence challenges, we consider only probative evidence and reasonable inferences that support the judgment of the trier of fact. On sufficiency challenges, we will neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1191 (Ind. 2021) (citations omitted).

I. Criminal Trespass

[8] To convict Beverly of criminal trespass as charged, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Beverly, without having a contractual interest in the property, “knowingly or intentionally refuse[d] to leave the real property of another person after having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent.” Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2(b)(2) (2024).³ Beverly challenges whether he knowingly or intentionally refused to leave after being asked, not his lack of a contractual interest in the property.

[9] First, Beverly contends the State needed to prove “he knowingly and intentionally came back on to the property ‘after being denied entry’.” Appellant's Br. p. 8. But that requirement falls under Indiana Code section 35-43-2-2(b)(1), and Beverly was charged under subsection (b)(2); thus, the State was not required to prove Beverly came back to the convention center after being denied entry. Beverly also appears to rely on the fact that he was wearing headphones to allege that he did not hear Cpl. Berry's command to leave the property. However, the record shows that upon being told he was under arrest, Beverly spoke with Cpl. Berry for several minutes while still wearing his headphones. Beverly's contention that he was “given only one order to leave the property which he did not hear[,]” id., is a request to reweigh evidence which we will not do. See Hall, 177 N.E.3d at 1191.

[10] Here, Cpl. Berry was working “off-duty employment” as a security officer for the Indiana Convention Center. Tr. Vol. II p. 11. In that capacity, Cpl. Berry requested identification from Beverly that would show he was permitted to be in the convention center while it was closed to the public. Cpl. Berry testified that Beverly ignored his requests for identification several times, so he told Beverly that he needed to leave the premises or he would be arrested for trespassing. At that point, Beverly knew he needed to leave the convention center, but Beverly ignored the command from Cpl. Berry and refused to leave. This evidence sufficiently proves that Beverly committed criminal trespass by knowingly or intentionally refusing to leave the property after being asked to do so.

II. Resisting Law Enforcement

[11] To convict Beverly of resisting law enforcement as charged, the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Beverly knowingly or intentionally “forcibly resist[ed], obstruct[ed], or interfere[d] with a law enforcement officer ․ while the officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer's duties[.]” Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1) (2024). Beverly concedes that he “did not comply” with Cpl. Berry, but he argues that “he did not use force against the officer.” Appellant's Br. p. 6. He also claims that “[e]ven if [his] arm was stiff for a few seconds ․ this is not the type of forcible and violent conduct contemplated by the statute.” Id. at 9.

[12] “[A] person ‘forcibly’ resists, obstructs, or interferes with a police officer when he or she uses strong, powerful, violent means to impede an officer in the lawful execution of his or her duties. But this should not be understood as requiring an overwhelming or extreme level of force.” Shepard v. State, 205 N.E.3d 1051, 1053-54 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (quoting Walker v. State, 998 N.E.2d 724, 727 (Ind. 2013)). Indeed, “even a modest exertion of strength, power, or violence” may sufficiently establish the forcible resistance element. Walker, 998 N.E.2d at 727. For example, “even ‘stiffening’ of one's arms when an officer grabs hold to position them for cuffing would suffice” to prove forcible resistance. Graham v. State, 903 N.E.2d 963, 966 (Ind. 2009).

[13] That is precisely the type of forcible resistance that occurred here. Cpl. Berry provided detailed testimony that Beverly initially “stiffened his arm and wouldn't allow [Cpl. Berry] to maneuver it to the back ․ to finish placing the handcuffs.” Tr. Vol. II p. 13. Cpl. Berry testified that he made several attempts to maneuver Beverly's uncuffed arm, but Beverly “kept on straightening his arm ․ with strength.” Id. at 14. Beverly was so resistant, in fact, that Cpl. Berry determined he needed to draw his taser to coerce Beverly's compliance. This evidence is sufficient to prove Beverly's resistance was not merely passive, but that he used strength to forcibly resist law enforcement.

[14] Still, Beverly contends he “is not asking the court to reweigh conflicting evidence but to base its decision on the bodycam footage introduced by the State.” Appellant's Br. p. 9. Despite his contention, this is a request that we judge Cpl. Berry's credibility and reweigh Cpl. Berry's testimony against the body-worn camera footage, which we will not do. See Hall, 177 N.E.3d at 1191. In any event, the footage supports Cpl. Berry's testimony. Beverly initially ignored Cpl. Berry's verbal commands. After eventually standing, Cpl. Berry gained control of Beverly's left wrist, and the video shows he was unable to place handcuffs on both of Beverly's wrists for over two minutes. We cannot discern the amount of force Beverly used from reviewing video evidence, but Cpl. Berry testified that Beverly stiffened his arm with strength. The video evidence, therefore, is consistent with Cpl. Berry's testimony.

[15] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Cpl. Berry did not deploy his taser.

2.   Beverly does not challenge his conviction for refusing to give identifying information.

3.   Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2-(b)(2) was amended effective July 1, 2025, to add “․ after having been asked to leave by the other person, that person's agent, or a law enforcement officer acting on behalf of the other person or that person's agent[.]” Beverly was charged under the version of the statute effective July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025.

Scheele, Judge.

Brown, J., and Felix, J., concur.