Trott v. State
| Decision Date | 12 June 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 82A01–1311–CR–496.,82A01–1311–CR–496. |
| Citation | 13 N.E.3d 953 (Table) |
| Parties | Nita Joyce TROTT, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Karen M. Heard, Evansville, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Richard C. Webster, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
VAIDIK
, Chief Judge.
After fleeing from police and leading officers on a chase through the busy streets of Evansville, Nita Joyce Trott was convicted of Class D felony resisting law enforcement and Class B misdemeanor reckless driving. Trott now appeals, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support both of her convictions. We find that Trott's actions support a conclusion that she fled from law enforcement by using her car and that throughout the pursuit she drove recklessly and endangered the safety and property of others. We therefore affirm the trial court.
The facts most favorable to the judgment follow. On January 24, 2013, Officer Frank Current of the Evansville Police Department was patrolling the east side of Evansville. At 2:28 p.m. Officer Current overheard a dispatch concerning an irate customer, Trott, “tearing up things at ... Don's Cleaners.” Tr. p. 8, 36. The dispatch gave a description of Trott, her car, and her license-plate number. Officer Current was stopped at a red light in the left-turn lane at the intersection of Boeke and Morgan Avenues near Don's Cleaners when he heard the dispatch. While Officer Current was stopped at the light, a car matching the description drove through the intersection, in the direction he was going to turn. Officer Current decided to pursue Trott, immediately turned on his emergency lights, and continued in the direction she was traveling. Officer Current was directly behind Trott's car; however, despite traveling fifty miles per hour in a thirty-mile-per-hour zone, Officer Current was unable to catch up to Trott's car. A constant gap remained between the two cars. Trott then made a right turn onto St. James Boulevard; Officer Current followed and turned on his siren. See id. at 23 ().
Once again Trott reached a speed twenty miles per hour over the thirty-mile-per-hour limit. Officer Current accelerated between forty and fifty miles per hour in order to keep up with Trott, who was now speeding down a residential, car-lined street. Officer Current was unable to close the half-block gap between his and Trott's cars until she finally slowed down to make a turn onto Tennessee Street. At this point, Officer Current was a car-length behind Trott's car with his lights and siren on; however, Trott still did not stop. She continued traveling at forty to fifty miles per hour, turned another corner, and did not stop at the stop sign at the intersection of Tennessee Street and Boeke Avenue. Id. at 16–17, 42; see also id. at 29, 37 (). Trott was then forced to make an abrupt stop at a red light at the very busy intersection of Boeke and Morgan. While Trott was stopped at the light, Officer Marcus Craig, who was responding to Officer Current's call, pulled up to the intersection directly in front of Trott and blocked her car.
The pursuit of Trott lasted about one minute, during which she essentially made a loop, speeding through both commercial and residential car-lined streets, and ended up at the same intersection where Officer Current's pursuit began. Despite the distance between the cars, at no point in time was there another car between Officer Current's and Trott's cars. In addition, the pursuit occurred during a time of high traffic, and three blocks away from where students from the local elementary school were being released for the day. See id. at 23 ()
Once Trott's car was forced to stop, Officers Current and Craig approached the driver and passenger sides of her car. Trott rolled her window down as the officers approached. Id. at 33; see also id. at 43–44 () & id. at 54 (). Officer Current attempted to explain the reason for the stop; however, Trott was very angry, shouted obscenities and derogatory comments, and acted disorderly. Officer Current asked Trott, Id. at 39. Trott replied that she had done nothing wrong and did not know why the police were behind her or had pulled her over. Officer Current then explained to Trott that she was accused of causing problems at Don's Cleaners and he was trying to get her to stop in order to discuss the incident. When Trott failed to hand over her license and registration, she was asked to exit her car. Officer Current tried to handcuff Trott for resisting law enforcement, but she moved around and made it difficult to place her in handcuffs. Trott was eventually taken to jail.
The State charged Trott with Count I: Class D felony resisting law enforcement (fleeing by car) and Count II: Class B misdemeanor reckless driving. At Trott's bench trial, the trial court found her guilty of both counts. The court sentenced her to eighteen months in the Indiana Department of Correction for Count I and 180 days in the Indiana Department of Correction for Count II, to be served concurrently.
Trott now appeals.
Trott raises two issues on appeal. First, Trott contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain her conviction for Class D felony resisting law enforcement by car. Second, Trott contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain her conviction for Class B misdemeanor reckless driving. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither reweigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of witnesses. Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind.2012)
. We look solely to the evidence most favorable to the judgment with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. A conviction will be affirmed if the probative evidence and reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence would have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
Trott first contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain her conviction for Class D felony resisting law enforcement. In order to convict Trott as charged here, the State had to prove that she (1) knowingly or intentionally; (2) fled from Officers Current and Craig; (3) after the officers, by visible or audible means, identified themselves; and (4) ordered her to stop. Ind.Code § 35–44.1–3–1(a)(3)
; Appellant's App. p. 15. Visible or audible means includes the operation of the officer's siren or emergency lights. I.C. § 35–44.1–3–1(a)(3). The State also had to prove that Trott used a car to commit the offense in order to convict her of a Class D felony. I.C. § 35–44.1–3–1(b)(1)(A).
Trott argues that there is insufficient evidence to prove that she fled from the officers. Specifically, she claims that “[t]here was simply no evidence presented to show she actually knew that Officer Current was behind her” and that “the first time she saw the officers [was] when they blocked her in at the intersection.” Appellant's Br. p. 9, 10. The record shows that immediately after Trott passed through the intersection in front of Officer Current, he turned on his lights and began pursuing her car. She did not stop; instead, she drove fifty miles per hour in a thirty-mile-per-hour residential area. After Trott made a turn and continued driving, Officer Current turned on his siren. Officer Current's use of his lights and siren indicate that Trott knew or had reason to know that the person she was resisting was a police officer. See State v. Blake, 468 N.E.2d 548, 550 (Ind.Ct.App.1984)
(). After Trott turned a second time during the pursuit, Officer Current was able to come within one car-length distance of her. Trott did not stop at a stop sign and continued driving her car until she was forced to abruptly halt at a red light at a very busy intersection. At no point during the pursuit of Trott were there any other cars between Trott's and Officer...
To continue reading
Request your trial