Court Opinion

ID: 9859742
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 22:33:27.139744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:04:42.222547
License: Public Domain

GIVAN, Justice,
dissenting in part and concurring in part
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in its determination that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that appellant was guilty of resisting law enforcement.
The majority takes the position that there was no evidence that the arresting officer, Sergeant Thomas, was in uniform or in a marked car, or properly identified himself as a police officer to appellant be*280fore appellant struck him and fled. However, the majority opinion correctly states the fact that Sergeant Thomas was seated in a patrol car parked at the curb when he was approached by a man who inquired as to whether the officer had seen someone walk by with guns under his coat.
I would take the position that this evidence presented to the jury permitted them to draw the inference that the man who approached the officer did so because it was apparent that Sergeant Thomas was in fact a police officer. Had Sergeant Thomas been in plainclothes in an unmarked car, it is highly unlikely that he would have been approached by a citizen to report a crime.
This Court has repeatedly stated, as does the majority in this case, that we must evaluate the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict. There is absolutely no evidence in this record that Sergeant Thomas was not in uniform or was not in a marked patrol car. An inference to the contrary was entirely reasonable in view of the evidence placed before the jury. I would affirm appellant’s conviction of resisting law enforcement.
I concur with the majority in all other respects.
PIVARNIK, J., concurs.