Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-293 | July 31, 2019 Page 1 of 9

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), 

this Memorandum Decision shall not be 

regarded as precedent or cited before any 

court except for the purpose of establishing 

the defense of res judicata, collateral 

estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Randall J. Hammond

Leonard, Hammond, Thoma & Terrill

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Lauren A. Jacobsen

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Shannon W. Kester,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff

July 31, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

19A-CR-293

Appeal from the Allen Superior 

Court

The Honorable Wendy W. Davis, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

02D04-1809-F6-1171

May, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-293 | July 31, 2019 Page 2 of 9

[1] Shannon W. Kester appeals his convictions of Level 6 felony resisting law 

enforcement1 and Class C misdemeanor reckless driving.2

 He presents one 

issue on appeal, which we restate as whether the State presented sufficient 

evidence to support his convictions. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] During the early morning hours of September 24, 2018, Detective Marc 

Deshaies and Sergeant Gary Hensler of the City of Fort Wayne Police 

Department were conducting surveillance in the area of Foster’s Bar and Grill. 

Detective Deshaies was in plain clothes and drove an unmarked vehicle. 

Sergeant Hensler was in full uniform and drove an unmarked vehicle. They

observed a Chevy Tahoe parallel park along the sidewalk just north of the bar’s 

entrance. A man in a blue shirt exited the Tahoe, stood around the vehicle for a 

few minutes, and then entered the bar. The man in the blue shirt then returned 

to his vehicle, entered through the driver’s side door, remained in the vehicle for 

twenty seconds, then walked to the rear of the vehicle. A white male

approached the man in the blue shirt from a parking lot north of the bar. The 

two did not say anything to each other, but they did exchange something in a 

 

1 Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1.

2 Ind. Code § 9-21-8-52.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-293 | July 31, 2019 Page 3 of 9

hand to hand transaction. The white male walked back in the direction of the 

north parking lot and the man in the blue shirt walked back into the bar. 

[3] Detective Deshaies believed the hand to hand transaction to be a narcotics 

exchange and notified other officers in the area. Seconds later, Detective 

Deshaies and Sergeant Hensler observed a vehicle3 exit the north parking lot. 

The vehicle drove southbound on Clinton Street, made a U-turn onto Lafayette 

Street, and passed Detective Deshaies’ vehicle. Detective Deshaies identified

the driver to be the white male involved in the drug transaction, radioed the 

vehicle’s direction, and asked other officers to intercede with a traffic stop. 

Detective Deshaies recognized the driver but could not immediately recall his 

name. At trial, Detective Deshaies identified Kester as that driver. 

[4] Sergeant Hensler pulled out behind Kester as he travelled northbound on 

Lafayette Street and followed Kester. Kester turned eastbound on Dalman

Avenue and then southbound on Warsaw Street. Sergeant Hensler continued 

eastbound on Dalman but radioed Detective Matt Foote to follow Kester 

southbound on Warsaw Street.

[5] Detective Foote was stationed near Foster’s Bar and Grill during the 

surveillance operation. He followed Sergeant Hensler and Kester northbound 

on Lafayette Street and then eastbound on Dalman Avenue. Detective Foote 

 

3 Detective Deshaies testified the vehicle was a “black Grand Marquis.” (Tr. Vol. I at 12.) Sergeant Hensler 

testified the vehicle was a “silver colored Mercury.” (Id. at 22.) Detective Foote testified the vehicle was a 

“grey in color 2003 Mercury Grand Marquis.” (Id. at 32.) 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-293 | July 31, 2019 Page 4 of 9

followed Kester when he turned southbound on Warsaw. He continued to 

follow Kester and activated his emergency lights. Kester did not immediately 

stop, so Detective Foote “chirped” his siren. (Tr. Vol. I at 34.) Kester started 

to slow down as if he was going to pull over to the side of the road, but then he 

rapidly accelerated. With Detective Foote in pursuit, Kester reached speeds of 

approximately sixty to seventy miles per hour in areas with speed limits of 

thirty to thirty-five miles per hour. Detective Foote testified that Kester “ran 

multiple traffic control signs, was fish tailing around corners almost side 

swiping cars, drove the wrong way on a one way street at least two times I 

believe, ran off the roadway and into a ditch, came out of the ditch, drove 

recklessly down an alley.” (Id. at 35-36.) During the pursuit, Detective Foote’s 

breaks failed. He had to use the emergency break to slow his car and pulled

into a gas station. Detective Foote radioed that he was no longer involved in 

the pursuit.

[6] After Sergeant Hensler stopped following Kester at the intersection of Dalman 

and Warsaw, Sergeant Hensler executed a U-turn to try to get back to the area

of the pursuit. He heard over the radio that Detective Foote had lost visual 

contact with the vehicle and proceeded to the general area where Detective 

Foote last saw the vehicle and located it. The vehicle was empty when 

Sergeant Hensler found it. He notified dispatch of the plate number and 

learned the vehicle was registered to Kester.

[7] Officer Cory Troyer and Officer Stephanie Reid responded to the pursuit. They 

were near the area where Kester’s vehicle was found, and Officer Troyer 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-293 | July 31, 2019 Page 5 of 9

observed a male in dark clothing run across the street. They followed the man 

through yards and down an alley. Officer Troyer exited the vehicle and yelled 

“stop police.” (Id. at 46.) The man fled from Officer Troyer, and Officer 

Troyer continued to yell “stop police.” (Id.) Officer Troyer learned the suspect 

was Shannon Kester, and he yelled “Shannon get on the ground.” (Id.) Kester 

slowed down, began to put his hands out and stoop down, but then he stood up 

and continued to run away. Officer Troyer caught up to Kester after Kester fell 

down a couple times. He warned Kester to stay on the ground or he would use 

his taser. Kester got back up and began to run again, and Officer Troyer 

deployed his taser. Officer Troyer and Officer Reid then apprehended Kester. 

[8] The State charged Kester with Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement and 

Class C misdemeanor reckless driving. The trial court held a bench trial on 

December 13, 2018. The court found Kester guilty of both charges. The court 

sentenced Kester to two-and-a-half-years incarceration for the resisting law 

enforcement charge, with 183 days executed and the remainder suspended to 

probation. The court also sentenced Kester to an executed term of twenty days 

for the reckless driving charge. The court ordered the two sentences to run 

concurrently. 

Discussion and Decision

[9] In assessing whether there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction, we 

consider the probative evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. Burns 

v. State, 91 N.E.3d 635, 641 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “It is the fact-finder’s role, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-293 | July 31, 2019 Page 6 of 9

not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh the evidence 

to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction.” Drane v. State, 867 

N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). “Reversal is appropriate only when no reasonable 

fact-finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable 

doubt. Thus, the evidence is not required to overcome every reasonable 

hypothesis of innocence and is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be 

drawn from it to support the verdict.” Burns, 91 N.E.3d at 641 (internal citation 

omitted).

Resisting Law Enforcement

[10] A person commits resisting law enforcement if the person “knowingly or 

intentionally: . . .flees from a law enforcement officer after the officer has, by 

visible or audible means, including operation of the law enforcement officer’s 

siren or emergency lights, identified himself or herself and ordered the person to 

stop.” Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1. The offense is a Level 6 felony if the person 

uses a vehicle to commit the offense. Id. 

[11] Kester argues the State failed to present sufficient evidence that he was driving 

the vehicle involved in the police chase. He notes neither Detective Deshaies 

nor Sergeant Hensler saw him get into the Grand Marquis. Kester also notes 

an inconsistency in the officers’ testimony about the color of the vehicle 

involved in the police chase, as Detective Deshaies testified the vehicle was 

black, Sergeant Hensler stated the vehicle was a silver, and Detective Foote 

indicated the vehicle was grey.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-293 | July 31, 2019 Page 7 of 9

[12] However, both Detective Deshaies and Sergeant Hensler identified Kester as 

the driver of the Grand Marquis. After the Grand Marquis made a U-turn onto 

Lafayette Street, it passed Detective Deshaies’ vehicle going the opposite 

direction, such that Detective Deshaies could easily see the driver. Detective 

Deshaies testified the white male he observed driving the Grand Marquis was 

the same white male he had observed in the hand to hand transaction. At trial, 

Detective Deshaies identified Kester as the white male driver. Sergeant Hensler 

also testified that Kester was involved in the hand to hand transaction and that 

he was the individual driving the Grand Marquis. Kester was the registered 

owner of the Grand Marquis, and Officer Troyer apprehended Kester near 

where the vehicle was abandoned. The State presented sufficient evidence to 

prove Kester was the driver of the Grand Marquis.

[13] Five different officers involved in the surveillance, pursuit, and apprehension of 

Kester testified at trial. While there is an inconsistency in the testimony 

regarding the color of the vehicle, it is the province of the trier of fact to resolve 

inconsistencies in witness testimony. Embrey v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1260, 1268 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2013). We cannot say the testimony was so contradictory and 

unsupported by circumstantial evidence that no reasonable fact finder would 

believe it. See Smalley v. State, 732 N.E.2d 1231, 1236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (“It

is well settled that it is the jury’s exclusive prerogative to weigh conflicting 

evidence . . . and thus we will not interfere with the jury’s decision.”). 

Therefore, we hold the State presented sufficient evidence to support Kester’s 

conviction for Level 6 felony resisting law enforcement. See Mason v. State, 944 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-293 | July 31, 2019 Page 8 of 9

N.E.2d 68, 71 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (holding there was sufficient evidence 

defendant resisted law enforcement when he used a vehicle to flee from officers 

responding to a burglary), trans. denied.

Reckless Driving

[14] A person commits reckless driving if the person drives at such an unreasonably 

high rate of speed as to endanger the safety or property of others. Ind. Code § 

9-21-8-52. Detective Foote testified the Grand Marquis drove at nearly twice 

the legal limit in a residential area, ran multiple traffic control signs, went the 

wrong way down a one-way street, ran off the road, and almost side swiped 

other vehicles. And, as we held above, the testimony of Detective Deshaies and 

Sergeant Hensler demonstrates Kester was driving that car. Consequently, the 

State presented sufficient evidence to support Kester’s conviction for reckless 

driving. See Crussel v. State, 29 N.E.3d 746, 751 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (holding 

sufficient evidence supported defendant’s conviction for reckless driving when 

he drove more than thirty-five miles per hour over the speed limit on a dark 

road with cross streets and houses along it).

Conclusion

[15] The State presented sufficient evidence to support Kester’s convictions of 

resisting law enforcement and reckless driving. Therefore, we affirm.

Affirmed. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CR-293 | July 31, 2019 Page 9 of 9

Mathias, J., and Brown, J., concur.