Christopher Cowans v. State of Indiana
53 N.E.3d 540, 2016 WL 1664984, 2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 124 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's mistaken belief that the law permits them to delay obeying a police officer's order to stop is a mistake of law, not a mistake of fact, and therefore cannot form the basis of a mistake-of-fact defense.
Facts:
- On December 4, 2014, an Indianapolis police officer in a marked car began following a truck driven by Christopher Cowans after noticing an issue with its temporary license plate.
- Cowans, noticing the police car, attempted to evade it by driving through a gas station.
- While maneuvering through the gas station, Cowans committed a traffic violation by entering a lane reserved for southbound traffic.
- The officer then activated his emergency lights to initiate a traffic stop.
- Cowans initially pulled over, but as the officer was doing paperwork, Cowans started driving again.
- For approximately six minutes, Cowans led the officer on a three-mile, low-speed 'chase,' during which he ran a red light.
- Cowans stated he was scared due to news reports of police violence and believed he was legally allowed to drive to a well-lit area before stopping.
- Cowans eventually stopped his truck in a line of traffic at a red light and surrendered peacefully.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Indiana charged Christopher Cowans with Level 6 Felony Resisting Law Enforcement in the Marion Superior Court, the trial court of first instance.
- At his jury trial, Cowans tendered a jury instruction on the defense of 'mistake of fact.'
- The trial court denied Cowans's request for the jury instruction.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Cowans guilty as charged.
- The trial court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced Cowans to 545 days, with 90 on home detention and 455 on probation.
- Cowans, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, an intermediate appellate court, arguing the trial court erred by refusing his tendered instruction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a driver's belief that they are legally permitted to continue driving to a well-lit, public area after a police officer has ordered them to stop constitute a mistake of fact, thereby entitling the driver to a mistake of fact jury instruction?
Opinions:
Majority - Baker, J.
No. A defendant's belief that they are legally entitled to delay a traffic stop to find a safer location is a mistake of law, not a mistake of fact, and does not warrant a mistake-of-fact jury instruction. The mistake-of-fact defense applies when a mistake about a factual circumstance negates the required criminal intent. Here, Cowans was not mistaken about the facts: he knew a police officer was ordering him to stop. His mistake was about a legal principle—he incorrectly believed the law gave him the right to choose the location of the stop. A mistaken belief about what the law allows is a mistake of law, and ignorance of the law is not a defense. However, the court noted that a person with an 'adequate justification' who takes reasonable steps to find a safer location to pull over may not be 'fleeing' at all, as their intent is not to escape apprehension. The proper defense in such a case would be to argue that the state failed to prove the element of 'flight,' not to claim a mistake of fact.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the distinction between a mistake of fact and a mistake of law in the context of resisting law enforcement. While affirming the trial court's decision to deny the specific jury instruction, the court's opinion provides significant guidance for future cases. It strongly suggests that the correct defense is not a mistake-of-fact claim, but rather an argument that delaying a stop to find a safe location does not meet the legal definition of 'fleeing' if the driver has an 'adequate justification.' This shifts the focus from the defendant's knowledge of the law to the reasonableness of their actions under the circumstances, potentially creating a viable, fact-based defense for juries to consider in similar situations.
