KEITH v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Imani Keith appeals her conviction for resisting law enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor. Keith raises one issue for our review, namely, whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support her conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Keith and Robert Tucker share a child, but their relationship ended before the child was born. After the child was born, Tucker was granted full legal and physical custody of the child, and he obtained a no-contact order against Keith. Beginning in May 2024, Tucker started reporting to officers that Keith was violating the no-contact order.

[3] On January 12, 2025, officers with the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department responded to a dispatch of “a trouble with a person” at Tucker's apartment. Tr. Vol. 3 at 36. Officers William Hornaday and Brian Nall were the first to arrive on the scene. Upon their arrival, they observed that Keith was “locked in” her car. Id. at 41. The officers determined that Keith was a “barricaded subject” and called for a supervisor to assist. Id. at 42.

[4] Sergeant Marlin Sechrist responded to the scene. When he arrived, he approached Keith's car and saw that the driver's side window was down. He also watched Keith throw “a handful of pills” into her mouth and “start[ ] downing the pills” with cough medicine. Id. at 49. At that time, Sergeant Sechrist determined that he needed to get Keith out of the car and into custody so that she could get medical attention.

[5] Sergeant Sechrist reached through the open window and unlocked the door. He then opened the door and grabbed Keith's arm. But Keith “forcefully ripped her arm” out of Sergeant Sechrist's grasp. Id. Keith then grabbed the steering wheel with her right hand and “just held on and kept [Sergeant Sechrist] from trying to pull her from the vehicle.” Id. at 50. Sergeant Sechrist gave Keith “multiple commands” to exit the vehicle, but she kept “forcefully pulling sideways toward the center of the car[.]” Id. Officer Nall ultimately deployed his Taser, and the officers were able to take Keith into custody.

[6] The State charged Keith with resisting law enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor. Following a jury trial, the jury found Keith guilty of that charge.¹ The court entered judgment of conviction accordingly and sentenced Keith to 284 days at the Marion County Jail. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Keith contends that the State presented insufficient evidence to support her conviction. Our standard of review on a claim of insufficient evidence is well settled:

For a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we look only at the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not assess the credibility of witnesses or reweigh the evidence. Id. We will affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

Love v. State, 73 N.E.3d 693, 696 (Ind. 2017).

[8] To prove that Keith committed resisting law enforcement, as a Class A misdemeanor, the State was required to show that she knowingly forcibly resisted, obstructed, or interfered with a law enforcement officer while the law enforcement officer was lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer's duties. See Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1).

[9] On appeal, Keith challenges only the “forcible” element of the offense. In particular, she contends that her actions did not constitute “forcible resistance.” Appellant's Br. at 7. Rather, she maintains that she “simply stood her ground.” Id. at 10. We cannot agree.

[10] Our Supreme Court has previously explained as follows:

the word “forcibly” is an essential element of the crime and modifies the entire string of verbs—resists, obstructs, or interferes—such that the State must show forcible resistance, forcible obstruction, or forcible interference. [Spangler v. State,] 607 N.E.2d 720, 722-23 (Ind. 1993). We also held [in Spangler] that the word meant “something more than mere action.” Id. at 724. “[O]ne ‘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.” Id. at 723. “[A]ny action to resist must be done with force in order to violate this statute. It is error as a matter of law to conclude that ‘forcibly resists’ includes all actions that are not passive.” Id. at 724.

But even so, “the statute does not demand complete passivity.” K.W. v. State, 984 N.E.2d 610, 612 (Ind. 2013). In Graham v. State, we clarified that “[t]he force involved need not rise to the level of mayhem.” 903 N.E.2d 963, 965 (Ind. 2009). In fact, even a very “modest level of resistance” might support the offense. Id. at 966 (“even ‘stiffening’ of one's arms when an officer grabs hold to position them for cuffing would suffice”).

Walker v. State, 998 N.E.2d 724, 726-27 (Ind. 2013) (emphasis added, some alterations in original).

[11] Here, again, Sergeant Sechrist testified that, when he opened the door and took hold of Keith's arm, Keith “forcefully ripped her arm” out of his grasp. Tr. Vol. 3 at 49. He also testified that Keith “grabbed” the steering wheel and “just held on” in order to keep him “from trying to pull her from the vehicle.” Id. at 50. And Sergeant Sechrist testified that he gave “multiple” commands for Keith to exit the car but that she kept “forcefully pulling sideways towards the center of the car[.]” Id.

[12] That testimony demonstrates that Keith did not merely stand her ground but, rather, used at least a modest level of force to resist Sergeant Sechrist. As such, the State presented sufficient evidence to support Keith's conviction for resisting law enforcement. We therefore affirm her conviction.

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State also charged Keith with resisting law enforcement, as a Level 6 felony, for her actions on a different date. The jury found Keith guilty of that charge, and the court entered judgment of conviction and sentenced her to 910 days in jail, with 626 days suspended to probation. Keith does not appeal that conviction. Based on other events, the State additionally charged Keith with stalking, as a Level 5 felony; battery resulting in bodily injury to a public safety official, as a Level 5 felony; and criminal mischief, as a Class B misdemeanor. However, the jury found Keith not guilty of stalking and battery, and the court entered a directed verdict in Keith's favor on the criminal mischief charge.

Bailey, Judge.

Vaidik, J., and Scheele, J., concur.