Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 02-07-2021

Case Style:

Ronda L. Phillips v. State of Indiana

Case Number: 20A-CR-01599

Judge: Leanna K. Weissmann

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Plaintiff's Attorney: Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General of Indiana

Tina L. Mann
Deputy Attorney General

Defendant's Attorney:


Free National Lawyer Directory


OR


Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.



Description:

Indianapolis, IN - Criminal defense attorney represented Ronda Phillips with arguing that the State presented insufficient evidence to support her convictions for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.



The night Jalissa Phillips (Jalissa) became a state-certified nursing assistant, she
and her “aunt-in-law” Ronda Phillips (Phillips) got into an argument over a
dog. Tr. Vol. II p. 17. Phillips was convinced Jalissa’s dog had fleas that were
giving Phillips’s brother—Jalissa’s father-in-law, roommate, and nursing
charge—a rash.
[3] The argument quickly became physical. Phillips squeezed the dog’s neck,
prompting Jalissa to rush to her pet’s aid. Phillips pushed Jalissa. Jalissa
reached for Phillips to catch herself, only to bring Phillips down with her.
Phillips hit her head on the counter as she fell, bloodying her nose and
forehead.
[4] Jalissa then called the police to remove Phillips from her home. When the
responding police officers decided to arrest Phillips, she was seated on the
passenger side of her Dodge Durango with the door ajar. Police told her she
was under arrest, but she did not cooperate. Instead, she grabbed a handle
inside the car, refused to leave the vehicle, and kicked at the officers attempting
to extract her. Two officers pulled her out of the car, where she continued to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1599 | February 5, 2021 Page 3 of 7
struggle. Ultimately, three police officers worked together to handcuff Phillips’s
hands behind her back.
[5] Phillips was charged with one count of disorderly conduct for fighting with
Jalissa and one count of resisting arrest. At her bench trial, a judge found
Phillips guilty on both counts and ordered her to pay $185 in court costs.
Phillips now appeals, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support her
convictions.
Discussion and Decision
[6] When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we
“must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences
supporting the verdict.” Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We
will not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility. Id. Instead, we affirm
unless no reasonable factfinder could determine that each element of the crime
was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
I. Disorderly Conduct
[7] Phillips argues that the State failed to prove that she recklessly, knowingly, or
intentionally engaged in fighting or tumultuous conduct. Ind. Code § 35-45-1-
3(a)(1). “Fighting” includes only physical altercations. Mi.D. v. State, 57 N.E.3d
809, 813 (Ind. 2016).
[8] Phillips argues that there is inconsistent evidence that Phillips ever threw a
punch, rendering the evidence insufficient to support this conviction. Jalissa
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1599 | February 5, 2021 Page 4 of 7
testified that Phillips tried to punch her, while Jalissa’s two middle school-aged
children testified that Phillips did not. But “fighting” does not necessarily mean
blows. In Mi.D., our Supreme Court determined that deliberately spitting on
someone is a “physical altercation” satisfying the “fighting” prong. Id. at 814.
That decision declined to follow J.S. v. State, which Phillips mistakenly relies on
here. 843 N.E.2d 1013 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (holding that “the mere act of
hitting” does not constitute fighting per se; the defendant must also be
motivated by hostility), invalidated by Mi.D., 57 N.E.3d 809.
[9] The State presented sufficient evidence that some sort of deliberate physical
altercation ensued. Jalissa testified that Phillips pushed her and threw punches.
Tr. Vol. II p. 28. Though Jalissa’s daughter did not corroborate the punches,
she did testify that Phillips tried to “push my mom away.” Id. at 32. The court
also heard recordings of Jalissa’s 9-1-1 calls, which are consistent with her incourt testimony. In the calls, Jalissa tells the 9-1-1 operator that Phillips
attacked her. Ex. 1. When her call was transferred, Jalissa elaborates, “Did
[Phillips] start swinging punches? Yes, she did, so I did.” Ex. 2.
[10] Although there is some conflicting testimony, we must only consider the
evidence favorable to the verdict. Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146. Relying on
Phillips’s denial that she was the aggressor, or other witness testimony that
Phillips never pushed Jalissa, would be to reweigh the evidence and reassess
witness credibility, which we cannot do. Id. The evidence that Phillips pushed
Jalissa is sufficient to support the conviction of disorderly conduct.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1599 | February 5, 2021 Page 5 of 7
II. Resisting Arrest
[11] Phillips next argues that the State failed to prove she used the requisite force to
satisfy the resisting law enforcement statute. Phillips was charged under Indiana
Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1), which states, “A person who knowingly or
intentionally . . . forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with a law enforcement
officer . . . while the officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer’s
duties . . . commits resisting law enforcement . . .” Acting “forcibly” is an
essential element of the crime. Walker v. State, 998 N.E.2d 724, 726 (Ind. 2013).
Resistance can be “forcible” even when a “modest exertion of strength, power,
or violence” is applied, though the fact-sensitive nature of this analysis can
result in admittedly unpredictable outcomes. Id. at 727-28.
[12] Phillips argues that her resistance was passive, not forcible. She compares her
actions—leaning away from the arresting officers, gripping a handle inside her
car and planting her foot to prevent her exit, tensing her body, attempting to
kick officers, and continuing to struggle outside the car to the extent that three
officers were needed to handcuff her—to two cases in which evidence was
insufficient to support a charge of resisting law enforcement. In the first, A.C. v.
State, 929 N.E.2d 907 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), the juvenile defendant passively
refused to stand or otherwise assist the arresting officer. In the second, Graham
v. State, 903 N.E.2d 963 (Ind. 2009), the defendant refused to present his arms
for handcuffing.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-1599 | February 5, 2021 Page 6 of 7
[13] As previously stated, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to
the verdict. Drane, 867 N.E.2d at 146. Through that lens, Phillips’s actions were
plainly more forcible than those exhibited by the defendant in either A.C. or
Pugh. Phillips did not merely lean away from officers or fail to present herself
for arrest. She wedged herself in her car such that “the whole car was shaking
back and forth” as officers tried to pull her out. Tr. Vol. II. p. 62. Phillips
struggled enough that three police officers participated in her arrest. Tr. Vol. II
p. 49.
[14] Phillips’s level of resistance has much more in common with cases where the
evidence was sufficient to support convictions for resisting arrest. See, e.g., New
v. State, 135 N.E.3d 619, 625 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (holding there was sufficient
evidence to prove defendant forcibly resisted when she pulled away from the
arresting officer and struggled “to the extent that another officer had to step in
to assist”); A.A. v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1277, 1281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (holding
there was sufficient evidence to prove defendant forcibly resisted because
although defendant “never actually kicked [the arresting officer], her conduct
could nonetheless be construed as a threatening gesture. . .”); Lopez v. State, 926
N.E.2d 1090 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (holding there was sufficient evidence to
prove defendant forcibly resisted because he pulled away from arresting officers
and then prevented them from putting his arms behind his back). In keeping
with those cases, we hold that there was sufficient evidence for the factfinder to
determine that Phillips resisted arrest.

Outcome: Because both convictions are supported by sufficient evidence, we affirm the
trial court.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: