Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion | 49A05-1410-CR-467 | June 30, 2015 Page 1 of 8

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

Timothy J. Burns

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Tyler G. Banks

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Estel Lynn,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

June 30, 2015

Court of Appeals Cause No.

49A05-1410-CR-467

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court.

The Honorable Anne Flannelly, 

Magistrate.

Cause No. 49G17-1406-CM-32751

Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion | 49A05-1410-CR-467 | June 30, 2015 Page 2 of 8

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant-Defendant, Estel Lynn (Lynn), appeals his conviction for resisting 

law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor, Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1) (2013);

and battery, a Class A misdemeanor, I.C. § 35-42-2-1(a)(1)(b) (2012). 

We affirm. 

ISSUE

Lynn raises one issues on appeal which we restate as: Whether the State 

presented sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to sustain Lynn’s

conviction for resisting law enforcement and battery. 

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Shortly before 10:00 p.m. on June 22, 2014, Officer Jason Thalheimer (Officer 

Thalheimer) and Officer John Walters (Officer Walters) of the Indianapolis

Metropolitan Police Department were sent to Woodland Drive, Indianapolis, 

Indiana to investigate a domestic disturbance. Upon their arrival, the 

complainant directed the officers to 20 Woodland Drive as being the residence 

as to where the disturbance originated.

On the sidewalk in front of the residence, the officers encountered Melissa 

Linhart (Linhart). Linhart appeared distraught, she was crying and was looking 

for her car keys so she could to leave. Officer Thalheimer assisted in looking 

for the keys while Officer Walters questioned her. Linhart was initially 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion | 49A05-1410-CR-467 | June 30, 2015 Page 3 of 8

reluctant to tell the officers what happened, but she eventually told the officers 

that she had been in a physical fight with Eric Lynn (Eric), her live-in

boyfriend. Officer Walters observed that Linhart had a small laceration in the 

corner of her mouth. Linhart then escorted the officers inside the residence that 

she shared with Eric, Eric’s father (Lynn), and Eric’s mother, Brenda Lynn 

(Brenda). 

When they entered the house, Lynn and Brenda were seated on the couch while 

Eric was lying on the floor watching the television. Officer Walters asked for

Eric’s identification. Eric declined, he laid back on the floor and said, “I am 

not [] saying anything.” (Appellant’s App. p. 41). At that moment, Lynn 

“jumped off the couch” and approached the officers, telling them to “get the 

fuck out.” (Tr. pp. 39, 56). According to the officers, Lynn and Eric appeared 

intoxicated due to their slurred speech. Officer Thalheimer ordered Lynn to 

remain seated and be quiet. Lynn ignored the command and instead, walked 

closer to Officer Walters, gave him two “fairly decent slaps” on the back 

causing Officer Walters to bend forward slightly, and stated “have a nice night 

and get out.” (Tr. p. 39). Since Lynn was too close to him, Officer Walters 

pushed Lynn away, which caused Lynn to fall. Officer Walters also asked 

Lynn not to touch the police. When Lynn regained his balance, he squared his 

body toward Officer Walters, and with a balled fist told Officer Walters that “he 

was going to beat [his] ass.” (Tr. p. 41). Officer Walters ordered Lynn to sit

down, and Lynn complied. At that point, Officer Walters resumed his arrest of

Eric for battery. Eric obeyed and placed his hands behind his back. However, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion | 49A05-1410-CR-467 | June 30, 2015 Page 4 of 8

after Officer Walters got one handcuff on Eric’s left arm, Lynn got up from the 

couch again and yelled “you’re not going to fucking arrest my son,” and he 

attempted to charge at Officer Walters. (Tr. pp. 42-43). Lynn’s charge was 

subverted by Officer Thalheimer, who tackled Lynn to a nearby couch. Once 

on the couch, Lynn attempted to free himself from Officer Thalheimer’s hold,

and Lynn told Officer Thalheimer to get off him. Officer Thalheimier 

commanded Lynn to stop resisting but Lynn refused and continued to struggle 

causing them to both roll off the couch and onto the floor. Once on the floor, 

Officer Thalheimer used his body weight to subdue Lynn and he effectively 

handcuffed him. 

Eric’s observation of his father being arrested made him belligerent and 

aggressive. Since Officer Walters had not yet fully handcuffed Eric, Eric lunged 

toward Officer Thalheimer. However, Officer Walters quickly interceded

before Eric could attack Officer Thalheimer. After Eric’s failed attempt to 

charge Officer Thalheimer, Officer Walters, who still had one handcuff on Eric, 

grabbed Eric’s left arm into a “half-nelson head restraint.” (Appellant’s App. 

12). Officer Walters then pressed Eric down to his knees. All the while, Eric 

tried to stand up but Officer Walters applied a wristlock, placed his knee in the 

middle of Eric’s shoulder blades, and directed Eric to give his right hand. 

Finally, Eric agreed. 

The following day, June 22, 2014, the State filed an Information charging Lynn 

with resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor, Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-

1(a)(1) (2013); and battery, a Class A misdemeanor, Ind. Code § 35-42-2-
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion | 49A05-1410-CR-467 | June 30, 2015 Page 5 of 8

1(a)(1)(b) (2012). On August 24, 2014, Lynn filed a pre-trial motion to suppress 

the evidence obtained by the officers during his arrest. In support of this 

motion, Lynn claimed that the challenged evidence should be suppressed 

because the police entry into his home was unlawful. On September 9, 2014, at 

the beginning of Lynn’s bench trial, the trial court heard Lynn’s motion. After 

receiving arguments from both parties, the trial court denied Lynn’s motion,

finding that Linhart resided in Lynn’s home since January 2014, and Linhart

had lawfully welcomed the officers into the home. The trial court then 

proceeded to Lynn’s bench trial. At the conclusion of Lynn’s bench trial, Lynn 

was found guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Lynn to concurrent 

sentences of 365 days on each Count—four of which were executed—with 361 

days on each Count suspended. 

Lynn now appeals. Additional information will be provided as necessary. 

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

I. Standard of Review

Lynn claims that there is insufficient evidence to sustain his Class A 

misdemeanor convictions for resisting law enforcement and battery. Our 

standard of review for sufficiency claims is well settled. We neither reweigh the 

evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Perrey v. State, 824 N.E.2d 

372, 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied. We only consider the evidence 

most favorable to the judgment and the reasonable inferences to be drawn 

therefrom. Id. Where there is substantial evidence of probative value to 

support the judgment, it will not be set aside. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion | 49A05-1410-CR-467 | June 30, 2015 Page 6 of 8

A. Resisting Law Enforcement 

First, Lynn argues that there was insufficient evidence that he committed the 

crime of resisting law enforcement. “A person who knowingly or intentionally 

. . . forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with a law enforcement officer ... 

while the officer is lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer’s duties . . . 

commits resisting law enforcement . . . ” I.C. § 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1) (2013). The 

term “forcibly” is a distinct element of the offense that modifies all three verbs 

“resists, obstructs, or interferes.” K.W. v. State, 984 N.E.2d 610, 612 (Ind. 2013) 

(citing Spangler v. State, 607 N.E.2d 720, 723 (Ind. 1993)). Forcible resistance 

includes “at a minimum, some physical interaction with a law enforcement 

officer.” Macy v. State, 9 N.E.3d 249, 253 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). Forcible 

resistance may be said to occur when a “threatening gesture or movement . . . 

presents an imminent danger of bodily injury [to an officer].” Walker v. State, 

998 N.E.2d 724, 727 (Ind. 2013) (holding there was sufficient evidence of 

forcible resistance where defendant aggressively advanced toward a police 

officer with his fists clenched after being ordered to lay on the ground).

In the present case, Linhart directed the officers inside Lynn’s home to 

investigate a potential domestic abuse. Lynn was upset that the officers were 

inside his home, and he ordered them to leave. Despite Lynn’s directive, the 

officers commanded Lynn to remain seated and quiet. When Lynn saw Officer 

Walters placing Eric in handcuffs, he became belligerent. At that point, Lynn 

stood up from the couch and yelled profanities at the officers. Lynn also tried 

to charge Officer Walters, but Officer Thalheimer tackled Lynn to a nearby 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion | 49A05-1410-CR-467 | June 30, 2015 Page 7 of 8

couch. Officer Thalheimer restrained Lynn on the couch. Repeatedly, Lynn 

attempted to free himself, and he told Officer Thalheimer to get off him. Lynn 

continued struggling with Officer Thalheimer and it caused them both to roll off 

onto the floor. Officer Thalheimer used his body weight to subdue Lynn and he 

successfully cuffed him. 

From the foregoing facts, we conclude that Lynn knowingly or intentionally 

forcibly resisted a law enforcement officer while the officer was lawfully 

engaged in the execution of the officer’s duties—investigating the domestic 

disturbance and arresting Eric for battery. We therefore conclude that the 

evidence is sufficient to support Lynn’s conviction for resisting law 

enforcement. Lynn’s claim to the contrary amounts to an invitation for this 

court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Perrey, 824 N.E.2d at 

373. 

B. Battery

Turning to his battery offense, the trial court convicted Lynn of battery as a 

Class A misdemeanor. Thus, the State’s evidence had to show that Lynn

knowingly or intentionally touched Officer Walters in a rude, insolent, or angry 

manner. See I.C. § 35-42-2-1(a)(1)(b)(2013). “A person engages in conduct 

knowingly if, when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of a high probability 

that he is doing so.” I.C. § 35-41-2-2(b). We note that touching, no matter how 

slight, may be a battery. Impson v. State, 721 N.E.2d 1275, 1285 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2000). “Indeed, a person may commit the touching necessary for battery by 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Opinion | 49A05-1410-CR-467 | June 30, 2015 Page 8 of 8

touching another’s apparel because it is intimately connected with the person 

and is regarded as part of a person for purposes of the battery statute.” Id.

Lynn argues that his conviction for battery should be reversed because “the 

backslapping combined with the statement, ‘have a nice night’ takes this 

exchange outside the parameters of a criminal act.” (Appellant’s App. p. 8). 

We disagree. The record shows that after the officers refused to leave, Lynn 

walked close to Officer Walters, gave him two slaps on the back and told him to 

get out. In addition, there was testimony from both officers that Lynn was 

angry at the time. As a result, this evidence was sufficient for the trial court to 

infer that a battery occurred.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the State presented sufficient evidence 

to support Lynn’s convictions for resisting law enforcement and battery.

Affirmed.

Bailey, J. and Barnes, J. concur