identify the officer or officers whose arrest efforts Bonner allegedly resisted in each information. Given the number of officers involved in the police chase and the number of ways Bonner was alleged to have fled from the different officers, the separate Resisting charges would not have provided Bonner with sufficient information to anticipate the proof that would be adduced against him with regard to each charge if the officers pertinent to each separate offense had not been particularly identified. Id. "Thus, the only way to obtain the desired convictions for both Class D felony Resisting and Class A misdemeanor Resisting was to prove that Bonner engaged in two separate and distinct acts of Resisting." Id. at 494. See also Fadell v. State, 450 N.E.2d 109, 116 (Ind.Ct.App.1983) (<HOLDING>). In support of his argument, Parahams also
holding that plaintiffs wdea claim was without merit where plaintiff was unable to identify any basis for his claim that the employer had a duty to rehire him holding that dismissal is not warranted where the plaintiff was unable to attend courtordered depositions because the military would not grant him leave time to comply with the courts orders holding that indictment sufficiently informed defendant of the charge against him so as to enable him to prepare a defense and thus there is no claim that he was surprised at trial holding that the ada plaintiff was unable to perform essential functions of job when the plaintiffs psychotherapist had told the employer that the plaintiff was unable to work in any position when the plaintiff did not disagree with that point and when the plaintiff in response to a request for admission conceded that she was no longer able to work holding that indictment for theft by deception was insufficient because the indictments failure to name the deputies and employees involved left fadell unable to anticipate the proof which would be adduced against him and unable to prepare his defense