Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Court of Appeals will head to Muncie on Dec. 2 to hear arguments about whether a trial court had sufficient evidence to convict a Boone County woman of resisting law enforcement.
Arguments for the case of Vanessa Morales Manuel v. State of Indiana will be held at Muncie Central High School as part of the appeals court’s Appeals on Wheels traveling oral argument initiative.
Arguments start at 10 a.m. Court of Appeals judges Cale Bradford, Leanna Weissmann, and Dana Kenworthy are on the panel.
According to court documents, in May 2024, Boone Circuit Court Judge Lori Schein found Manuel guilty of resisting law enforcement, driving while suspended, and possession of marijuana.
The conviction stemmed from an incident that took place in December 2022.
On Dec. 17, 2022, the Boone County Sheriff’s Office encountered Manuel after her vehicle had run out of gas in the middle of the road.
When a deputy approached her vehicle, he noticed Manuel attempting to conceal a firearm in the driver’s side door.
Despite instructions for her to drop the firearm, Manuel grabbed it, court documents stated.
The deputy disarmed her and discovered the gun was fully loaded with a bullet in the chamber and a full extended magazine.
In a brief to the appeals court, Riley Parr, attorney for Manuel, argued that the state didn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she forcibly resisted law enforcement.
He stated that Manuel complied with all law enforcement commands except for when she momentarily grabbed the firearm, but that she ultimately did not aim it at the officer or otherwise use it, according to court documents.
The brief stated that the state failed to prove Manuel “resisted at all, let alone forcibly,” citing Pogue v. State, where a defendant forcibly resisted law enforcement by refusing to let go of the box cutter he was holding when police tackled him to the ground and asked him to drop it.
“Manuel’s failure to comply with Deputy Dixon’s directive to immediately drop the gun was not an extended stand-off like in Pogue, but rather over within seconds of Deputy Dixon approaching the vehicle,” the brief stated. “Manuel was not combative like Pogue; instead she remained in the car during her interaction with Deputy Dixon, was not argumentative, and remained passive until she was taken into custody”
Parr continued that even if Manuel did forcibly resist law enforcement, the state proved insufficient evidence that she used a firearm, but instead merely possessed it.
“She had it in her hand near the edge of the seat for a very short amount of time before Deputy Dixon slammed her hand against the seat to dislodge the gun from her hand. Manuel possessed the gun, but she did not use it,” he said.
“We hope the Court of Appeals will recognize that the evidence presented at trial is insufficient to support Ms. Manuel’s conviction,” Parr said in a statement to Indiana Lawyer via email. “This case raises important questions about the boundaries of lawful police interactions, and we’re looking forward to getting the Court of Appeals’ guidance on the issue.
The oral argument will be broadcasted online.
The case is Vanessa Morales Manuel v. State of Indiana, 24A-CR-1250.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.