TOLIVER v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] David Toliver appeals following his convictions of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement ¹ and Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.² On appeal he challenges the sufficiency of the State's evidence supporting his conviction of resisting law enforcement. We hold Toliver forcibly resisted police when he used his body weight to prohibit two police officers from pushing open the unlocked door to the bedroom in which Toliver was hiding. Accordingly, we affirm his conviction.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On November 17, 2024, Toliver was at the home of his sister, Latoya, and her two children. Toliver had been consuming alcohol throughout the day. That evening, Toliver began insulting Latoya and calling her offensive names. When Toliver would not stop insulting Latoya, she knocked over his beer, and then Toliver punched Latoya in the right eye. Latoya's teenager called the police for help. Latoya repeatedly told Toliver to get out of her home, but he refused to leave and shut a door on her arm. Latoya's teenager pushed Toliver to the ground, and when Latoya saw how angry Toliver became, she hit him on the head with an extension cord.

[3] Five police officers arrived and, while still outside, they could hear arguing inside the home. Officer Andrew Martin knocked and identified himself, and Latoya invited him into the home. As Officer Martin entered, he saw Toliver enter a bedroom and slam the door shut. He noticed Latoya's right eye was beginning to swell, she had scratches on her neck, and the living room was in disarray. Latoya continued to ask Toliver to leave, but he would not. Officer Martin believed he had probable cause to arrest Toliver for domestic battery, and he ordered Toliver to exit the bedroom multiple times. Toliver refused and screamed at Officer Martin and Officer Cody Vicary. The bedroom door was unlocked, so Officers Martin and Vicary attempted together to push the door open, but “it was pretty apparent that the – somebody was holding that door shut.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 123.) They pushed the door open far enough to deploy a “pepper blast” into the bedroom.³ (Id. at 124.) When Toliver began coughing from the pepper, Officer Vicary kicked the door several times, and the door came off the hinges and folded in half over Toliver because Toliver was positioned near the base of the door. Officer Vicary drug Toliver out of the bedroom by his belt, and then four officers worked together to place Toliver in handcuffs.

[4] The officers then drug him outside where he could breathe clear air. Toliver screamed at the officers and threatened to spit on them. Officer Nathaniel Toth began to escort Toliver to a squad car. As they walked, Toliver was “turning his full body and yelling back at the officers[.]” (Tr. Vol. 3 at 19.) Officer Toth “could feel the force from [Toliver's] body pushing towards [Officer Toth], requiring [Officer Toth] to use more force ․ to push [Toliver] in the direction” of the car. (Id.) Officer Toth was telling him to stop, but Toliver continued screaming and spit on Officer Toth's face. Officers placed Toliver in the back of the squad car.

[5] Based on these events, the State charged Toliver with Level 6 felony domestic battery,⁴ Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class A misdemeanor trespass. A jury found Toliver guilty of trespass and resisting law enforcement, and the trial court imposed concurrent one-year sentences to be served executed at the County Jail.

Discussion and Decision

[6] Toliver alleges the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction of resisting law enforcement. Our standard of review regarding sufficiency of the evidence claims is well-settled:

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).

[7] Resisting law enforcement occurs when a person “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.” Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a). There is no “strict bright-line test” for whether a defendant's actions were forcible. Walker v. State, 998 N.E.2d 724, 728 (Ind. 2013). Instead, we consider whether a defendant used “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. The element may be satisfied with even a modest exertion of strength, power, or violence.” Id. at 727.

[8] Toliver argues the evidence is insufficient because “the only evidence that Toliver forcibly resisted occurred when he was in the bedroom behind the closed door.” (Br. of Appellant at 9.) We cannot agree with the way Toliver has construed the evidence, which we must view in the light most favorable to the judgment. See Powell, 151 N.E.3d at 262 (“we consider only the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences” therefrom).

[9] After refusing to leave the bedroom in accordance with the officer's verbal orders, Toliver braced himself against the bedroom door with such force that two officers working together could not push the door fully open. Officer Vicary testified that, even after the door was kicked off the hinges and he was able to grab Toliver's belt, he had to “continue to yank” to get Toliver out of the bedroom because Toliver was “either grabbing something or moving forward away from me.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 186.) When Toliver was on the ground in the hallway, Officer Dane Frieden was attempting to handcuff Toliver, and Toliver was “not letting [Frieden] take his right hand at first.” (Id. at 223.) When Officer Toth was walking Toliver to the squad car, Toliver was turning against the direction of the squad car and pushing against Officer Toth, so Officer Toth had “to use more force ․ to push [Toliver] in the direction” of the car. (Tr. Vol. 3 at 19.) Moreover, Officer Toth explained:

[T]he Defendant started to, uh -- how to explain, like -- forcibly just move his body back and forth, try to push away from me, pull away from me. Um, I was trying to counter his movements and just try to keep him nice and tight against me. So I don't know if he was trying to run. I don't know if he's trying to go after Officer Martin. I don't know what was gon -- what he was trying to do. Um, but it was just a few seconds of a -- just struggle just to make sure I can get positive control over his movements.

(Id. at 25-26.) Because of this struggle, other officers had to help Officer Toth maintain control of Toliver.

[10] In light of all of this evidence that was presented to the jury, we reject Toliver's assertion that the “only evidence” of resistance was when he was in the bedroom behind the closed door. (Br. of Appellant at 9.) We also reject his suggestion that bracing himself behind the door with such strength that two officers could not push the door open to remove him from a place he was trespassing might not constitute resisting law enforcement. See, e.g., Walker, 998 N.E.2d at 727 (“Furthermore, we have never held that actual physical contact between the defendant and the officer has been required to sustain a conviction for resisting law enforcement.”). The jury, as trier of fact, had ample evidence from which it could determine that Toliver “forcibly resist[ed], obstruct[ed], or interfere[ed]” as the police lawfully attempted to execute their duties. Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1). We will not interfere with the jury's decision.

Conclusion

[11] The State's evidence was sufficient to permit a jury to infer Toliver forcefully resisted, obstructed, or interfered with police as they attempted to remove him from Latoya's home and place him in a squad car. We accordingly affirm.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1).

2.   Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2(b)(2).

3.   Officer Martin described a “pepper blast” as a device that shoots out a powdered pepper substance that temporarily causes burning of the eyes, nose, mouth, and lungs.

4.   Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1.3(a)(1) & (b)(2).

May, Judge.

Altice, J., and Foley, J., concur.