Williams v. State
| Citation | 160 Ind.App. 294,311 N.E.2d 619 |
| Decision Date | 04 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 3--773A86,3--773A86 |
| Parties | Allen WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Robert S. Bechert, Deputy Public Defender, Fort Wayne, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Glenn A. Grampp, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendant-appellant Allen Williams was charged by affidavit with the felony of interfering with a police officer. He pleaded not guilty and was thereafter tried without the intervention of a jury. Upon a finding of guilty, appellant was committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections, Reception and Diagnostic Center, for a period of not less than one nor more than five years. Appellant's motion to correct errors was subsequently overruled by the trial court and this appeal followed.
The evidence most favorable to the State discloses that during the early morning hours of March 18, 1972, Officers Larry Anspach and Richard Witte of the Fort Wayne Police Department were dispatched to the T & T Tavern, an establishment located in Fort Wayne, Indiana. The dispatch indicated that there was 'a party armed and subject fight' at the location in question. Upon entering the tavern, the officers, who were both wearing police uniforms, observed the appellant and another individual arguing with the bar tender, a Mr. Alonzo Moore. Officer Anspach testified that he made an inquiry of Mr. Moore as to the nature of the problem and that Moore replied that he wanted appellant and the other subject arrested for assault and battery. Officer Anspach instructed Moore that he would have to inform the individuals himself that they were under arrest for the offense. When Moore complied, the officer also informed the subjects that they were under arrest and that they would have to be removed to the police station. Officer Anspach further testified that appellant-Williams thereupon stated that 'he wasn't going and that I wasn't going to take him.' The officer again apprised Williams of the fact that 'he was going to have to go.' When both officers attempted to restrain Williams by his arms, appellant jerked free. Officer Anspach again made an attempt to restrain Williams and was able to place appellant in a headlock. During the officer's ensuing effort to guide Williams to the front door, two individuals jumped on him and demanded that appellant be set free. In the midst of the struggle which followed, someone shouted, 'he has a gun.' Upon releasing Williams, the officer observed that Williams was confronting him with a pistol which was subsequently found to be the officer's own. While Officer Anspach was attempting to retreat, Williams shouted several times that he was going to kill him and fired two shots in the officer's direction. The appellant was thereafter subdued by other persons on the premises and persuaded to place the weapon on a table.
On appeal, appellant argues that the citizen's arrest made by Alonzo Moore was void ab initio for the reason that a private citizen does not have the authority to arrest an individual for a misdemeanor committed in his presence. It is further contended, alternatively, that if Alonzo Moore did have the authority to make such an arrest and detain Williams, he did not implement this authority and did not, in fact, place Williams under citizen's arrest. Appellant finally asserts that it was unlawful for the police officers to arrest him for a misdemeanor that was not committed in their presence.
Appellant was convicted under IC 1971, 35--21--4--2, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 10--1005a (Burns Supp. 1973), which provides as follows:
'Drawing weapon or committing injury upon officer or person assisting him.--Whoever shall draw, use or attempt to use a firearm, deadly or dangerous weapon, or commit a bodily injury upon any peace or police officer of this state, or upon any person assisting such peace or police officer knowing him to be such officer or person assisting such peace or police officer, while assaulting, resisting,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gibbons v. Higgins, 94-2636
...Casselman v. State, 472 N.E.2d 1310 (Ind.App.1985); City of Indianapolis v. Ervin, 405 N.E.2d 55 (Ind.App.1980); Williams v. State, 311 N.E.2d 619 (Ind.App.1974). This privilege exists "not because its use is necessary to protect him from an unlawful arrest, but because it is the only way i......
-
Casselman v. State
...is a police officer performing his duties regardless of whether the arrest in question is lawful or unlawful." Williams v. State (1974), 160 Ind.App. 294, 311 N.E.2d 619, 621. See also Fields v. State (1978), 178 Ind.App. 350, 382 N.E.2d In Fields, the defendant attempted to prevent the pol......
-
State v. Nunes
...the men who intervened were police officers, and he is held to that knowledge and the consequent duty to submit. Williams v. State, 311 N.E.2d 619, 621(4) (Ind.App.1974). The defendant was the aggressor throughout the entire encounter; even after he was subdued and placed in the police car,......
-
Lemon v. State
...v. State, 472 N.E.2d 1310 (Ind.Ct.App.1985); Fields v. State, 178 Ind.App. 350, 382 N.E.2d 972, 975-76 (1978); Williams v. State, 160 Ind.App. 294, 311 N.E.2d 619 (1974). However, the State's reliance on this line of decisions is misplaced at best. These cases follow the modern view that "a......