Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1510-CR-1583 | July 14, 2016 Page 1 of 7

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

Angela N. Sanchez

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Sammuel Willis,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

July 14, 2016

Court of Appeals Cause No.

49A05-1510-CR-1583

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court

The Honorable Linda Brown, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49G10-1503-CM-8438

Barnes, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1510-CR-1583 | July 14, 2016 Page 2 of 7

Case Summary

[1] Sammuel Willis appeals his conviction for Class A misdemeanor resisting law 

enforcement. We affirm.

Issue

[2] The issue before us is whether the evidence is sufficient to support Willis’s 

conviction for Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Facts

[3] On March 10, 2015, Officer Douglas Wright from the Indianapolis 

Metropolitan Police Department was dispatched to a Rally’s restaurant. Willis 

worked at the Rally’s restaurant. Upon arrival at the restaurant, Officer Wright 

spoke to Willis’s girlfriend, who stated that she and Willis had been arguing 

because Willis refused to give her the keys to his car, which contained their 

baby, so she could leave. Officer Wright went inside the restaurant and ordered 

Willis to give his girlfriend the keys to the car, due to it being cold and raining 

and his baby being in the car. As Willis’s girlfriend was driving away, Willis 

came out of the restaurant stating that he wanted to get some property out of 

the car. Officer Wright told Willis that it was too late because his girlfriend had 

already left. Willis then stated, “give me my phone, I’m going to call my mom 

to come pick me up and I’m going to beat her a**.” Tr. p. 8. 

[4] After hearing this, Officer Wright informed Willis that he was under arrest. 

Officer Wright then grabbed Willis’s right hand and placed a handcuff around 

his right wrist. As Officer Wright pulled Willis towards him out of the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1510-CR-1583 | July 14, 2016 Page 3 of 7

restaurant, Willis stated, “get your hands off of me.” Id. at 9. Willis then tried 

to push Officer Wright’s hand away and attempted to pull away from Officer 

Wright’s grasp. Officer Wright’s partner came to assist him. Officer Wright’s 

partner grabbed Willis’s left arm, and the two officers wrestled with Willis 

trying to get him down to the ground. The officers struggled with Willis for 

about a minute. Once the officers placed Willis on the ground, Officer Wright 

had to physically wrestle Willis’s left arm out from underneath him in order to 

get the left handcuff on. During the struggle, Officer Wright suffered injuries on 

his ankles and his knuckles. Officer Wright also suffered three lacerations on 

his right hand and one laceration on his left hand from the handcuffs.

[5] On March 11, 2015, the State charged Willis with a Class A Misdemeanor

resisting law enforcement. The charging information alleged that, “Sammuel L 

Willis did knowingly or intentionally forcibly resist, obstruct or interfere with 

Douglas Michael Wright and/or [his partner], law enforcement officers with 

the Indianapolis Metro Police Dept, while said officers were lawfully engaged 

in their duties as law enforcement officers.” App. p. 14. A trial court later 

found Willis guilty and sentenced him to 365 days with all but time served 

suspended to probation. Willis now appeals.

Analysis

[6] Willis’s argument is that there is insufficient evidence he “forcibly” resisted 

Officer Wright. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, “appellate 

courts must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences 

supporting the verdict.” Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). It is 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1510-CR-1583 | July 14, 2016 Page 4 of 7

the fact finders role to assess the credibility of the witnesses and weigh the 

evidence. Id. Appellate courts must consider conflicting evidence most 

favorably to the trial courts ruling and affirm the conviction unless “no 

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

reasonable doubt.” Id.

[7] Indiana Code Section 35-44.1-3-1(a)(1) provides that “[a] person who 

knowingly or intentionally forcibly resists, obstructs, or interferes with a law 

enforcement officer or a person assisting the officer while the officer is lawfully 

engaged in the execution of the officer's duties, commits resisting law 

enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor.”

[8] In Spangler v. State, our supreme court held that the word “forcibly” is an 

essential element of the crime and modifies the entire string of verbs—resists, 

obstructs, and interferes—such that the State must show forcible resistance, 

forcible obstruction, or forcible interference. 607 N.E.2d 720, 722-23 (Ind. 

1993). Our supreme court has also held that “forcibly” means “something 

more than mere action.” Id. at 724. “[O]ne ‘forcibly resists law enforcement

when strong, powerful, violent means are used to evade a law enforcement 

officials rightful exercise of his or her duties.” Id. at 723. “[A]ny action to resist 

must be done with force in order to violate this statute. It is error as a matter of 

law to conclude that ‘forcibly resists' includes all actions that are not passive.” 

Id. at 724. “The force involved need not rise to the level of mayhem.” Walker v. 

State, 998 N.E.2d 724, 727 (Ind. 2013). In fact, even a very “modest level of 

resistance” might support the offense. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1510-CR-1583 | July 14, 2016 Page 5 of 7

[9] In Walker, our supreme court further stated:

[N]ot every passive—or even active—response to a police officer 

constitutes the offense of resisting law enforcement, even when 

that response compels the officer to use force. Instead, a person 

“forcibly” resists, obstructs, or interferes with a police officer 

when he or she uses strong, powerful, violent means to impede 

an officer in the lawful execution of his or her duties. But this 

should not be understood as requiring an overwhelming or 

extreme level of force. The element may be satisfied with even a 

modest exertion of strength, power, or violence. Moreover, the 

statute does not require commission of a battery on the officer or 

actual physical contact—whether initiated by the officer or the 

defendant. It also contemplates punishment for the active threat 

of such strength, power, or violence when that threat impedes the 

officers ability to lawfully execute his or her duties. 

Id.

[10] In support of his argument, Willis relies on the opinions in K.W. v. State, 984 

N.E. 2d 610 (Ind. 2013); Colvin v. State, 916 N.E.2d 306 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009); 

and Berberena v. State, 914 N.E.2d 780 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). In K.W., our 

supreme court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to show forcible 

resistance where an officer attempted to handcuff a juvenile and the juvenile 

“turned to walk away, pulling against [the officers] grasp on his wrist.” K.W., 

984 N.E.2d at 611. In Colvin, we concluded that the evidence was sufficient to 

show passive resistance but not forcible resistance where the defendant kept his 

hands in his pockets and refused to comply with the officer’s commands. 

Colvin, 916 N.E.2d at 309. In Berberena, we concluded that the evidence was 

insufficient to show forcible resistance where an officer commanded Berberena 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1510-CR-1583 | July 14, 2016 Page 6 of 7

to stop what he was doing and when Berberena refused to comply, the officer 

“had to forcefully place Berberena against the wall of the building” and 

struggled with Berberena to grab his hands and place them in handcuffs. 

Berberena, 914 N.E.2d at 781.

[11] On the other hand, the State relies on the opinions in McCaffrey v. State, 605 

N.E.2d 241 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992); Stansberry v. State, 954 N.E.2d 507 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2011); and Johnson v. State, 833 N.E.2d 516 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). In 

McCaffrey, we concluded that the evidence was sufficient to show forcible 

resistance where the defendant refused the officer’s orders to stand on two 

different occasions and had to be carried to and from the police car by two 

officers. McCaffrey, 605 N.E.2d at 242. Stansberry referenced the action of 

placing one’s hands on the casing of a doorway to resist leaving the house as 

evidence that was sufficient to show forcible resistance. Stansberry, 954 N.E.2d 

at 511 (citing Wellman v. State, 703 N.E.2d 1061, 1064 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)). In 

Johnson, we concluded that the evidence was sufficient to show forcible 

resistance where a person “push[es] away” officers attempting to search him, 

“turn[s] away,” and “stiffen[s] up” when officers try to place him in a police 

car. Johnson, 833 N.E.2d at 518-19.

[12] Of the cases presented, Willis’s conduct is most analogous to that in Johnson

and distinguishable from the conduct in K.W. In K.W., the defendant merely 

“turned to walk away, pulling against [the officer’s] grasp on his wrist. K.W., 

984 N.E.2d at 611. Here, Willis did more than just turn to walk away. Willis 

tried to push Officer Wright’s hand away, just as in Johnson. Willis also tried to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A05-1510-CR-1583 | July 14, 2016 Page 7 of 7

pull away from Officer Wright’s grasp, wrestled with the two officers for about 

a minute, caused injuries to one officer, and laid on his left arm to keep the 

officers from grabbing it. Willis’s resistance was equivalent to the defendant in 

Johnson “stiffening up” when officers tried to place him in a police car. Johnson, 

833 N.E.2d at 518-19.

[13] Given that Willis used strong, powerful, violent means to evade law 

enforcement Officer Douglas Wright’s rightful exercise of his duties, we 

conclude there is sufficient evidence to show Willis did “forcibly” resist Officer 

Wright.

Conclusion

[14] The evidence is sufficient to support Willis’s conviction for Class A 

misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. We affirm.

[15] Affirmed.

Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur.