Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1506-CR-587 | December 31, 2015 Page 1 of 5

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

Donald J. Berger 

South Bend, Indiana 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller 

Attorney General 

Tyler G. Banks 

Deputy Attorney General 

Indianapolis, Indiana 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jorge Navarro, 

Appellant-Defendant, 

v. 

State of Indiana, 

Appellee-Plaintiff 

December 31, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No. 

71A03-1506-CR-587 

Appeal from the St. Joseph 

Superior Court 

The Honorable Elizabeth C. 

Hurley 

Trial Court Cause No. 

71D08-1409-F6-184 

Vaidik, Chief Judge. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1506-CR-587 | December 31, 2015 Page 2 of 5

Case Summary 

[1] Jorge Navarro refused to exit his car and fled from three police officers who 

pursued him with activated lights and sirens at speeds of ninety miles per hour. 

At his trial for resisting law enforcement, Navarro testified that he knew police 

officers were pursuing him. He now argues that there is insufficient evidence 

that he knew he was fleeing from a police officer. However, the evidence 

presented at trial, including Navarro’s testimony, is sufficient to support his 

conviction. 

Facts and Procedural History 

[2] At approximately 3:00 a.m. on September 20, 2014, South Bend Police 

Department Officer (SBPD) Joseph Carey, who was wearing his police uniform 

and driving a marked police car, was dispatched to investigate the report of a 

loud noise. Officer Carey noticed a silver car speeding through a residential 

neighborhood. The officer then noticed that the car had stopped in the middle 

of the street and was backing up toward the officer’s car. When the silver car 

stopped, Officer Carey noticed that its front end was damaged and smoke was 

coming out of the engine or the front tire. Officer Carey asked the driver, 

Navarro, if he was okay. Navarro asked the officer if he wanted to race. 

[3] Officer Carey turned on his car’s overhead lights and dashboard camera and 

approached Navarro’s car. As he and Navarro were talking, Navarro reached 

around the center console area. Concerned for his safety, Officer Carey radioed 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1506-CR-587 | December 31, 2015 Page 3 of 5

for back-up assistance. The officer also asked Navarro, who appeared 

intoxicated, to exit his car. Navarro began revving his engine and refused to 

comply with the Officer Carey’s request. SBPD Officer Devon Johnson arrived 

at the scene, activated the lights on his police car, and also ordered Navarro to 

exit his car. SBPD Officer Anuar Velazquez arrived at the scene shortly 

thereafter, and the three officers attempted to remove Navarro from the car. 

When they were unsuccessful, Officer Carey deployed his Taser. Navarro put 

his car in gear and fled with the three officers in pursuit with activated lights 

and sirens. SBPD Officer Greg Howard eventually joined in the pursuit, which 

reached speeds of ninety miles per hour. 

[4] As his tires began to smoke, Navarro struck a curb, exited his vehicle, and 

threw himself on the ground. He was arrested and charged with resisting law 

enforcement with a vehicle. At trial, Navarro testified that he knew the officers 

were pursuing him because of the lights and sirens behind him. He also 

admitted that “driving away from the police was a really bad choice.” Tr. p. 

94. A jury convicted Navarro as charged, and he appeals his conviction. 

Discussion and Decision 

[5] Navarro’s sole argument is that there is insufficient evidence to support his 

conviction. On a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not 

reweigh the evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses. Bell v. State, 31 

N.E.3d 495, 499 (Ind. 2015). We look to the evidence and reasonable 

inferences to be drawn therefrom. Id. If there is probative evidence from which 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1506-CR-587 | December 31, 2015 Page 4 of 5

a reasonable fact-finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a 

reasonable doubt, we will affirm. Id.

[6] In order to convict Navarro of resisting law enforcement with a car, the State 

had to prove that he knowingly or intentionally fled from a law enforcement 

officer after the officer identified himself by visible or audible means, including 

operation of the officer’s siren or emergency lights, and ordered Navarro to 

stop. See Ind. Code § 35-44.1-3-1(a). The offense is a Level 6 felony if the 

person, while committing the offense, operates a vehicle in a manner that 

creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person. I.C. § 34-44.1-3-

1(b). To be convicted for resisting law enforcement, the evidence must show 

that the defendant knew or had reason to know that the person he resisted was 

a police officer. Mason v. State, 944 N.E.2d 68, 71 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. 

denied. 

[7] Here, Navarro’s sole contention is that there is insufficient evidence that 

Navarro “kn[e]w that it was a police officer who ordered him to stop.” 

Appellant’s Br. p. 5. However, our review of the evidence reveals that Officer 

Carey, the first officer to approach Navarro’s car, was wearing a uniform and 

driving a marked police car. During his initial conversation with Navarro, the 

officer activated his emergency lights. Two other officers arrived at the scene in 

marked cars with activated emergency lights before Navarro fled. In addition, 

Navarro admitted at trial that he knew police officers were pursuing him 

because of the lights and sirens behind him as well as the conflict he had with 

the officers before he fled. This is sufficient evidence to prove that Navarro 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 71A03-1506-CR-587 | December 31, 2015 Page 5 of 5

knew that it was a police officer who ordered him to stop and to support his 

conviction of resisting law enforcement. 

[8] Affirmed. 

Bailey, J., and Crone, J., concur.