Sparko Spearman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
MEMORANDUM DECISION FILED 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. Oct 17 2018, 9:29 am CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Victoria L. Bailey Timothy J. Burns Indianapolis, Indiana Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Attorney General Jesse R. Drum Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Sparko Spearman, October 17, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 18A-CR-1084 v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff Appeal from the Marion Superior Court The Honorable Helen W. Marchal, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 49G15-1610-F6-039833 Vaidik, Chief Judge. [1] Sparko Spearman appeals her convictions for Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement (by fleeing) and Class A misdemeanor driving while Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1084 | October 17, 2018 Page 1 of 2 suspended. Spearman does not dispute that she was in a car that fled from a state trooper; she contends only that the State failed to prove that she was the driver of the car. We disagree. The State’s evidence was easily sufficient to identify Spearman as the driver. Most notably, the trooper testified that Spearman exited the driver’s door and told him that she did not stop because her boyfriend told her to “keep going.” Tr. pp. 60, 105. Spearman does not dispute this evidence but claims that her own trial testimony—that her intoxicated boyfriend was driving and that she merely switched seats with him as the car came to a stop—is “no less credible” than the trooper’s testimony. Appellant’s Br. p. 10. This is merely a request for us to decide who is more believable, which is the trier of fact’s role, not ours. Leonard v. State, 80 N.E.3d 878, 882 (Ind. 2017). We therefore affirm Spearman’s convictions. [2] Affirmed. Riley, J., and Kirsch, J, concur. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-1084 | October 17, 2018 Page 2 of 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
