Defendant Convicted of Resisting & Obstructing Plain-Clothes Officers


Case: People v. Miller

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals ( Unpublished Opinion )

Judges: Per Curiam – Riordan, Saad, and Markey

Issues:Sufficiency of the evidence; People v. Kloosterman; People v. Wolfe; Resisting & obstructing a police officer; MCL 750.81d(1); “Knowledge”;People v. Nichols; Preservation of issues for appeal; People v. Unger (On Remand); Abandonment; People v. Kelly

Summary:

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to justify the jury’s finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew or had reason to know that the arresting officers were police officers. He was convicted of resisting and obstructing a police officer, possession of burglar’s tools, and breaking and entering a motor vehicle to steal less than $200. His convictions arose out of his breaking and entering of an officer’s personal vehicle. An off-duty, plain clothes officer spotted him during the incident and, with others, arrested him despite his resistance. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that there was not sufficient evidence to prove that he knew the arresting officers were police officers because they were wearing plain clothes and did not show him a badge. It noted that they “verbally identified themselves as police officers to defendant and told” him to wait for other officers to arrive, that one of them showed his badge during the struggle, and that a third officer who arrived on the scene “was readily identifiable as a police officer because he arrived in a fully marked police cruiser wearing his full police uniform.” As such, the court concluded “there was sufficient evidence for the jury to determine that while resisting or obstructing the officers, defendant had reasonable cause to believe the persons he was assaulting or obstructing were officers performing their duties.”Affirmed

Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Archive
Search By Tags
Follow Us
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square