Opinion
No. 27A02–1302–CR–135.
2014-04-9
Zar DYSON, Appellant–Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.
In sum, the State's closing argument, the evidence, and the jury instructions sufficiently presented the two offenses as separate and distinct. Dyson pointed his loaded rifle only at Officer Pauley. He intimidated all three officers, who were placed in fear of retaliation when they saw that he was holding an assault rifle and refused to show his hands. Intimidation was not dependent upon the rifle's position. Instead, it needed only to have been raised. Dyson was not placed in double jeopardy. Thus, I would affirm his convictions for both offenses. In all other respects, I concur.