COA affirms delinquency adjudication for battery, resisting law enforcement

Keywords
  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00
IL file photo

A police officer had reasonable suspicion to stop a Hendricks County juvenile who was later adjudicated a delinquent for felony battery against a public safety official and resisting law enforcement, the Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed Friday.

According to court records, in December 2022, Danville Police Department Officer Kennedy Molina was pursuing a vehicle that had committed several traffic infractions.

The vehicle drove into a ditch and the two young male occupants fled on foot to a nearby neighborhood in Avon.

Molina followed the individuals and law enforcement set up a perimeter. Law enforcement eventually located the passenger of the vehicle and after talking with him, believed someone was driving to the neighborhood to pick up the other suspect.

Avon Police Department Lieutenant Thomas Owens and other officers continued to search for the suspect.

After an hour, Owens turned onto Quillen Court and noticed a vehicle’s brake lights switch from on to off.

It was 25 degrees outside, and every other vehicle had frost on the windows except for this vehicle. This information led Owens to believe the vehicle had been driven recently.

Owens also noticed that the license plate was not registered to anyone residing in the neighborhood and the vehicle was parked at an angle by the curb, as though it had just pulled in.

He believed the vehicle was there to pick up the suspect and so he approached it. He noticed the driver, A.V., appeared to be a 15- or 16-year-old girl.

A.V. refused to provide her age to Owens and stated that she was just sitting there.

Owens instructed A.V. to get out of the vehicle several time but she refused.

The doors were locked, so he reached inside the vehicle to unlock the door and tried to pull A.V. out by her wrist but she pulled back in to try and get away.

He was eventually able to pull her out of the car while she flailed, screamed and cursed officers.

A.V. kicked Owens in the shoulder, arm and back as he attempted to place her in handcuffs. She screamed that the handcuffs hurt so he loosened them.

He told her to sit down, but she refused so Owens then pulled A.V. to the ground and again asked her age, which she refused.

Officers eventually located the suspect hiding in the back of A.V.’s vehicle.

The state filed a delinquency petition which alleged A.V. committed battery against a public safety official, a Level 6 felony if committed by an adult and resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor if committed by an adult.

Prior to the fact finding hearing, A.V. did not file a motion to suppress any evidence that was obtained as a result of her exchange with the police.

During the bench trial, Molina and Owens testified on the incident and Owen’s body camera footage was admitted into evidence.

A.V. made no objection to any of this evidence based on the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution.

She did argue in her closing argument that Owens lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle.

After taking the matter under advisement, the Hendricks Superior Court found A.V. was a delinquent child for committing the charged offenses.

She was ordered to serve six months on probation with the possibility of an early release after five months.

A.V. raised one issue on appeal and that was whether the state presented sufficient evidence to support her adjudications when she claimed the police officer lacked reasonable suspicion to stop her.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision.

First, the appellate court addressed A.V.’s failure to object at trial. The court recognized that there must be an objection at trial to be able to appeal.

“Generally, however, a defendant must object during the trial to the admission of the evidence to preserve the issue on appeal,” Judge Elizabeth Tavitas wrote for the appellate court.

Next, the court addressed the sufficiency of evidence claim.

“When Lieutenant Owens repeatedly asked A.V. to get out of her vehicle, she refused to comply with Lieutenant Owens, pulled away from his grasp, and had to be forcibly removed from the vehicle. The body camera video of the encounter shows A.V. flailing, screaming, cursing, and actively fighting her removal from the vehicle This evidence is sufficient to sustain A.V.’s adjudication for resisting law enforcement,” Tavitas wrote. “Next, A.V. repeatedly kicked Lieutenant Owens, and this evidence is sufficient to sustain A.V.’s adjudication for battery.”

Judges Paul Mathias and Leanna Weissmann concurred in A.V. v. State of Indiana, 23A-JV-1765

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}