[OneWingedShark]

Nothing:
“We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers.” IS the second-to-last sentence on the first page of the decision. http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf

“Here, the trial court’s failure to give the proffered jury instruction was not error. BECAUSE WE DECLINE TO RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT TO REASONABLY RESIST AN UNLAWFUL POLICE ENTRY, WE NEED NOT DECIDE THE LEGALITY OF THE OFFICERS’ ENTRY[…]”

——— In other words, because we say there is no right [to bar entry] the jury may be kept uninstructed in the FACTS of the case, namely: the legality of that entry.

“In sum, we hold that Indiana the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law. Accordingly, the trial court‘s failure to give Barnes‘s proffered jury instruction on this right was not error.”

——— Notice the retro-activity of this, they NO LONGER hold the right to exist, so therefore it *DIDN’T* exist prior to this case; even though they previously cited United States v. Di Re (1948) and its quote “One has an undoubted right to resist an unlawful arrest, and courts will uphold the right of resistance in proper cases…”

[/disgust]

[Gondring]

Did you read the thing? HERE is what the case was about:

Barnes appealed, challenging the trial court's refusal to give his tendered jury instruction [...]

It was about an irrelevant jury instruction. And because the jury instruction didn't meet the facts of the case, it was legitimately denied.

Whether or not the entry was legal was immaterial to the jury instruction--which is what was at question in the case!