Opinion ID: 851991
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: “Forcibly” Resisting

Text: This Court has held that “one ‘forcibly resists’ law enforcement when strong, powerful, violent means are used to evade a law enforcement official’s rightful exercise of his or her duties.” Spangler, 607 N.E.2d at 723. The level of force certainly “need not rise to the level of mayhem.” Graham v. State, 903 N.E.2d 963, 965 (Ind. 2009). Yet the statute does not demand complete passivity, either. Merely walking away from a law-enforcement encounter, Spangler, 607 N.E.2d at 724, leaning away from an officer’s grasp, A.C. v. State, 929 N.E.2d 907, 912 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), or “twisting and turning ‘a little bit’” against an officer’s actions, Ajabu v. State, 704 N.E.2d 494, 495-96 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), do not establish “forcible” resistance. 3 Here, the only evidence presented to the trial court was Sergeant Smith’s testimony and the surveillance video of the incident, and neither establishes “force” beyond a reasonable doubt. Sergeant Smith’s testimony was merely that K.W. “began to resist and pull away,” Tr. 3, or “turned, [and] pulled away,” Tr. 4. But nothing in either description suggests any “strength, power, or violence” in K.W.’s maneuver, beyond what is inherent in taking a step away, see Spangler, 607 N.E.2d at 723-24, “lean[ing] away,” see A.C., 929 N.E.2d at 912, or “twisting and turning ‘a little bit,’” see Ajabu, 704 N.E.2d at 495 — none of which amount to “forcible” resistance.1 Without evidence of “forcible” resistance, K.W.’s delinquency adjudication cannot be sustained.