Title: Jefferson Jean-Baptiste v. State of Indiana

State: indiana

Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court

Document:

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE 
Suzy St. John 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Curtis T. Hill, Jr. 
Ruth Ann Johnson 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney General of Indiana 
Marion County Public Defender Agency 
 
 
 
 
 
Indianapolis, IN  
 
 
 
 
 
Stephen R. Creason 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Michael Gene Worden 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Deputy Attorneys General 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
_________________________________ 
 
No. 49S02-1707-CR-00500 
 
JEFFERSON JEAN-BAPTISTE,   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appellant (Defendant below), 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    v. 
 
STATE OF INDIANA,    
 
 
 
 
 
Appellee (Plaintiff below).  
_________________________________ 
 
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, No. 49G19-1604-CM-12899  
The Honorable Rebekah F. Pierson-Treacy, Judge 
_________________________________ 
 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-1608-CR-1798 
_________________________________ 
 
October 3, 2017 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
After a bench trial in Marion Superior Court, Jefferson Jean-Baptiste was convicted of 
Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.  The Court of Appeals reversed Jean-Baptiste’s 
conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence.  The Court of Appeals also sua sponte addressed 
a constitutional question, and reversed for that reason as well.  We granted the State’s petition to 
transfer by order dated July 27, 2017. 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Oct 03 2017, 11:39 am
 
2 
 
 
We agree with the Court of Appeals that reversal is warranted because the State failed to 
present sufficient evidence to support Jean-Baptiste’s conviction. We therefore summarily affirm 
all portions of the Court of Appeals opinion except its sua sponte constitutional analysis and 
holding, which remain vacated.  See Appellate Rule 58(A).  In keeping with our longstanding 
principle of constitutional avoidance, we decline to address that issue.  See Citimortgage v. 
Barabas, 975 N.E.2d 805, 818 (Ind. 2012). 
 
All Justices concur.