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: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:

MARK S. LENYO GREGORY F. ZOELLER

South Bend, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana

JUSTIN F. ROEBEL

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

RONALD EDWARD MADISON, )

)

Appellant-Defendant, )

)

vs. ) No. 71A04-1206-CR-332

)

STATE OF INDIANA, )

)

Appellee-Plaintiff. )

APPEAL FROM THE ST. JOSEPH SUPERIOR COURT 

The Honorable Jerome Frese, Judge 

Cause No. 71D03-1102-FD-131

December 20, 2012

 

MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION

KIRSCH, Judge 
2

Following a jury trial, Ronald E. Madison appeals his convictions of resisting law 

enforcement, a Class D felony,1and operator never licensed, a Class C misdemeanor,2

contending the evidence presented was insufficient to support his convictions. We 

affirm.

On February 25, 2012, South Bend Police Officer Joseph Stitsworth was patrolling 

in his marked police car and investigating a complaint of loud music. He observed a tan 

Plymouth Acclaim playing loud music which had stopped in the middle of the street and 

which had no working taillights. He pulled behind the vehicle and activated his overhead 

lights to initiate a traffic stop. The driver drove off. Officer Stitsworth activated his siren 

and pursued the vehicle. The chase lasted for several blocks. It ended when the sole 

occupant of the vehicle jumped from the car, slipped and fell on the ice, and then fled on 

foot. From a distance of nine or ten yards away, Officer Stitsworth identified Madison as 

the occupant of the vehicle based upon more than twenty prior interactions that the 

officer had with him in the preceding ten years. Officer Stitsworth exited his police car 

and followed a single set of tracks in the snow to a residence. There, the officer ordered 

the occupants of the residence to exit the house. The occupants included Madison who 

was “breathing hard as if he had been running.” Tr. at 70. 

Madison was charged and convicted of resisting law enforcement and driving 

without ever having a driving license. At trial, Officer Stitsworth testified to the above 

facts and to the fact that Madison’s certified driving record indicated that Madison had an 

 

1

See Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a), (b).

2

See Ind. Code § 9-24-18-1(a).
3

identification card but had never had a driver’s license. In addition, one of the occupants 

of the house where Madison was arrested testified that Madison had been working on a 

tan vehicle on the day of the incident and accounted for the whereabouts of all of the 

home’s occupants except Madison at the time of the chase. 

Our standard of review regarding a claim of insufficient evidence to support a 

conviction is well established: we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility 

of the witnesses. Jones v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1132, 1139 (Ind. 2003). We may look only 

to the evidence most favorable to the judgment and reasonable inferences therefrom and 

will affirm if we conclude that evidence of probative value exists such that a reasonable 

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

doubt. Id. 

To support a conviction for resisting law enforcement, the State must prove 

beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally fled “from a law 

enforcement officer after the officer has, by visible or audible means, including the 

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(a)(3). The offense 

is a class D felony if the person uses a vehicle to commit the offense. I.C. § 35-44.1-3-

1(b)(1)(A). 

Here, Madison does not argue that the State did not present sufficient evidence 

that the person driving the Plymouth Acclaim did not commit the offense. Rather, he 

argues that the State did not prove that he was the person who was driving the vehicle. 

Given our standard of review, however, the evidence is clearly sufficient to support the 
4

conviction. Officer Stitsworth testified that he had “[n]o question at all” that Madison 

was the driver of the vehicle based upon more than twenty interactions over a ten-year 

period. Weighing the credibility of witnesses and drawing inferences and conclusions 

therefrom is within the exclusive province of the jury. See Taylor v. State, 681 N.E.2d 

1105, 1111 (Ind. 1997).

Affirmed.

MATHIAS, J., and CRONE, J., concur.