WHITCHURCH v. STATE (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] James Elliot Whitchurch appeals his conviction for resisting law enforcement as a class A misdemeanor. He asserts that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On September 14, 2024, Lafayette Police Officer Luke Brown responded to a call regarding “a disturbance” being caused by an intoxicated “[w]hite male wearing a green shirt” who was “trying to fight people” outside of Stumpy's Bar. Transcript Volume II at 61, 82. When Officer Brown, who was dressed in his police uniform and driving his patrol vehicle, arrived at the scene, he observed Whitchurch, who matched the description, walking southbound on the sidewalk outside the bar. Officer Brown drove by in his patrol car and asked Whitchurch if he was okay. Whitchurch's response was “negative” and “verbally aggressive.” Id. at 64. Officer Brown “pulled around to get out and talk to [Whitchurch] to see what was going on.” Id. When Officer Brown attempted to talk to Whitchurch, he “[r]esponded verbally aggressive and then refused to stop after [Officer Brown] gave him a lawful order to stop.” Id. Officer Brown asked Whitchurch to “identify himself” and also told him that “he was not free to go and to stop.” Id. Whitchurch ignored the commands and Officer Brown followed behind Whitchurch “still trying to get compliance from him.” Id. at 65. Whitchurch, while yelling and screaming, turned around and “basically square[d] up to fight” the officer. Id. Whitchurch then walked “into the roadway.” Id. In order to “deescalate the situation,” Officer Brown determined that “the best course of action at that time” was to pepper spray Whitchurch. Id. After being sprayed, Whitchurch “calmed down,” returned to the sidewalk, sat down, and placed his hands behind his back. Id. at 66. Officer Brown handcuffed and arrested Whitchurch and provided him water to help “clear out his eyes” of the pepper spray. Id. at 67.

[3] Officer Brown transported Whitchurch to the Tippecanoe County Jail. Upon arrival, Whitchurch was “compliant” and “calm” because “he was still suffering from the effects” of the pepper spray. Id. at 69. Shortly thereafter, Whitchurch became verbally aggressive. He yelled at a jail nurse, told Officer Brown he would slap him if he had one hand free, and told Officer Brown that he would kill him. Whitchurch also spat in the face of one of the correctional officers who was present.

[4] On December 10, 2024, the State charged Whitchurch with intimidation as a level 6 felony, resisting law enforcement as a class A misdemeanor, and possession of marijuana as a class A misdemeanor. On June 6, 2025, the State amended the information to add another intimidation charge as well as a charge for battery by bodily waste as level 6 felonies. The State subsequently dismissed the possession of marijuana charge.

[5] The court held a jury trial on July 10, 2025. Officer Brown testified, and the State offered his body camera footage that was admitted into evidence without objection. The jury found Whitchurch guilty of resisting law enforcement, one count of intimidation, and battery by bodily waste. Following a hearing, the court sentenced Whitchurch to an aggregate term of four years with one and one-half years to be served in the Department of Correction, one and one-half years in Tippecanoe County Community Corrections, and one year suspended to probation.

Discussion

[6] Whitchurch challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for resisting law enforcement as a class A misdemeanor. Specifically, he asserts that there “is not enough evidence to prove that [he] saw or heard [Officer] Brown, or knew that he was the person [Officer] Brown was addressing.” Appellant's Brief at 9.

[7] When reviewing claims of insufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses. Jordan v. State, 656 N.E.2d 816, 817 (Ind. 1995), reh'g denied. We look to the evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom that support the verdict. Id. The conviction will be affirmed if there exists evidence of probative value from which a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.

[8] To convict Whitchurch of resisting law enforcement as a class A misdemeanor, the State was required to prove that he knowingly or intentionally fled from a law enforcement officer after the officer had, by visible or audible means, including operation of the law enforcement officer's siren or emergency lights, identified himself or herself and ordered the person to stop. Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(3).

[9] The State presented evidence that Officer Brown was in uniform and driving his marked patrol car when he first interacted with Whitchurch. During that interaction, Whitchurch was verbally aggressive. Whitchurch watched as Officer Brown exited his police vehicle, and when Officer Brown asked Whitchurch where he was going and ordered him to “come here,” Whitchurch responded by saying, “Where are you walking to motherf--ker?” State's Exhibit 1 at 5:39-5:47. Officer Brown again explicitly told Whitchurch to “come here” and that he was “not free to go,” but Whitchurch responded, “f--k you” and continued to walk away from the officer. Id. at 5:45-5:52. Whitchurch subsequently turned around to face the officer as if he wanted to fight him and then turned around and again walked away while shouting expletives. This evidence was sufficient to demonstrate that Whitchurch knowingly or intentionally fled from a law enforcement officer after the officer had, by visible or audible means, identified himself and ordered Whitchurch to stop. Whitchurch's assertion on appeal is merely a request for us to reweigh the evidence in his favor which we will not do. See Wallace v. State, 249 N.E.3d 648, 656 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (finding that officer's clear demand to “stop” left nothing to the imagination and that defendant's argument to the contrary is “directly at odds with the language of Indiana Code Section 35-44.1-3-1(a)(3)”). Evidence of probative value exists from which a reasonable jury could find Whitchurch guilty of resisting law enforcement beyond a reasonable doubt.

[10] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the conviction.

[11] Affirmed.

Brown, Judge.

Altice, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.