Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Barnes v. State of Indiana - Opinion on Petition for Rehearing

Barnes v. State of Indiana - Opinion on Petition for Rehearing

Ratings: (0)|Views: 659 |Likes:
Published by Kenan Farrell

More info:

Published by: Kenan Farrell on Sep 20, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/12/2014

pdf

text

original

 
ATTORNEYFORApPELLANT
Erin
L.
BergerEvansville,Indiana
ATTORNEYSFORAPPELLEE
GregoryF.ZoeIlerAttorneyGeneralofIndiana
ATTORNEYFORAMICI
CURIAE
JoelM.SchummIndianapolis,IndianaStephenR.CreasonChiefCounselOfficeofAttorneyGeneral
A
DORNEYFORAMICI
CURIAE
EricC.BohnetIndianapolis,IndianaKarl
M.
SchambergDeputyAttorneyGeneralIndianapolis,Indiana
No.82S05-1007-CR-343
]ntDe
]nbiana
~Uprtme
((ourt
RICHARD
L.
BARNES,
Appellant(Defendantbelow),
v.
STATEOFINDIANA,
Appellee(Plaintiffbelow).
AppealfromtheVanderburghSuperiorCourt,No.82D02-0808-CM-759TheHonorableMaryMargaretLloyd,JudgeOnPetitionforRehearingSeptember20,2011David,Justice,Whenlawenforcementofficersrespondingtoa"domesticviolenceinprogresscall"arrivedatthescene,thehusband,aboutwhomhiswifehadmadethe911call,gotphysicalwiththerespondingpoliceofficer.AjuryfoundRichardBarnesguiltyofbatteryonapoliceofficerandresistingarrest.Weearlieraffirmedhisconviction,andhehaspetitionedforrehearing.
 
Inaddition,theAttorneyGeneralhasrequestedrehearing,ashaveamicuscunaemembersoftheIndianaGeneralAssembly,whourgeclarificationormodificationofourpriorruling.Thepetitionsforrehearing,advancedbythoughtfulpeople,haveconvincedusthattheappropriatecourseistograntrehearingandspeakfurtheronthelawofthiscase.Attheheartofthisappealhasbeenthesuspectedspouseabuser'scontentionthatthetrialcourterredwhenitrefusedtoinstructthejurythathehadtherighttogetphysicalwiththepoliceofficersifhebelievedtheirattempttoentertheresidencewaslegallyunjustified.Neitherthetrialcourt,northeCourtofAppeals,northisCourthaveagreedwithBarnesthattheofficersviolatedanystatuteoranyprovisionofthestateorfederalconstitutionswhentheysoughtentry,atthewife'srequest,toinvestigateandensurethewife'ssafety.Thecentralquestionweaddressedearlierwaswhetherthedefendantwasentitledtohavethejurytoldthatthecommonlawrighttodefendone'shomeagainstinvasionwasadefenseagainstIndiana'sstatutethatcriminalizesviolenceagainstpoliceofficersactinginthecourseoftheirduties.ThelegislaturehasdeclaredittobeaClassAmisdemeanorwhenonecommitsbatteryonalawenforcementofficer"whiletheofficerisengagedintheexecutionoftheofficer'sofficialduty."Ind.Code§35-42-2-1(a)(1)(B)(2008).1Barnes'sdemandforthisinstructionhasrestedsolelyonthecommonlawrulethat"aman'shomeishiscastle,"whichgiveshimtherighttoreasonablyresistunlawfulentry.TheamicuslegislatorsadditionallyciteastatutenotpleadedbyBarneswhichcreatesadefensetocrimesofviolence,authorizingapersontouse"reasonableforce,includingdeadlyforce,againstanotherperson...ifthepersonreasonablybelievesthattheforceisnecessarytopreventorterminate"theunlawfulentryofhisdwellingoroccupiedmotorvehicle.I.C.
§
35-41-3-2(b).Aswillappearbelow,theAttorneyGeneral'sanalysisofthisstatutespeakstothesamepointraisedbytheamicus.
1
Courtshavelongunderstoodthatthelegislatureintendedbatteryonalawenforcementofficertorequireproofthattheofficerwasengaged
in
officialduties.SeeTappv.State,406N.E.2d296,302(Ind.Ct.App.1980)("[I]tisthenatureoftheactsperformedandnotwhethertheofficerisonoroffduty,
in
oroutofuniform,whichdetermineswhethertheofficerisengaged
in
theperformanceofhisofficialduties.").
2
 
TheAttorneyGeneral'sresponsetoBarnes'spetitionforrehearingurgesthatthisrightshouldremainintactbutlikewiseurgesthat"reasonableresistancedoesnotincludebatteryorotherviolentactsagainstlawenforcement."WedeemtheAttorneyGeneraltohaverestatedthecentralthesisofourresolutionofthiscase.Ashesays,Tenseandevendangerouspolice-citizenencountersfitnolimitedpattern;reactionsanddecisionsaremadeinthesplitsecond,andeachincidentisunique.Thehindsight,after-the-factevaluationbythejudiciaryisinherentlyacase-by-caseprocess,butourcourtshaveshownthemselvesequaltothetaskastheystrikethecorrectbalancebetweensafetyandprivacy.TheAttorneyGeneraliscorrectthatmakingsuchdecisionsisinherentlyamatterbasedonfact,butwhetheracriminaldefendantmaybeexcusedfromacrimecreatedbystatuteisamatterofgenerallaw.Consistentwithhisearlierpoint,weholdthattheCastleDoctrineisnotadefensetothecrimeofbatteryorotherviolentactsonapoliceofficer.OurholdingdoesnomorethanbringIndianacommonlawinstridewithjurisdictionsthatvaluepromotingsafetyinsituationswherepoliceandhomeownersinteract.Importantly,weobservetheactionsinthiscasewere"appropriatetoarapidlyunfoldingsituationintheimmediateaftermathofareported"domesticviolencesituation.Commonwealthv.Gomes,795·N.E.2d1217,1222(Mass.App.Ct.2003)(refusingtograntajuryinstructionontherighttoforciblyresistanunlawfulpoliceentry).Wealsoemphasizethatthisholdingdoesnotalter,indeedsaysnothing,aboutthe
,
,
statutoryandconstitutionalboundariesoflegalentryintothehomeoranyotherplace.Ourearlieropinionwasnotintendedto,anddidnot,changethatexistinglawabouttherightofthepeopletobesecureintheirpersons,houses,andpapersagainstunreasonablesearchesandseizures.
u.s.
Const.amend.IV;Ind.Const.art.1,§11.Thisalsoreflectsthebasisforourholdingaboutdefensesavailabletocriminaldefendantschargedwithviolence~gainstpoliceofficers:therulingisstatutoryandnotconstitutional.TheGeneralAssemblycananddoescreatestatutorydefensestotheoffensesitcriminalizes,andthecrimeofbatteryagainstapoliceofficerstandsonnodifferentground.Whatthestatutorydefensesshouldbe,ifany,isinitshands.
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->