Court Upholds Resisting and Obstructing Conviction
People v. Taylor
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals ( Unpublished Opinion )
Judges: Per Curiam – O’Connell, Beckering, and Stephens
Sufficiency of the evidence; Resisting or obstructing a police officer; MCL 750.81d(1); People v. Vandenberg; Obstruction; People v. Morris
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant-Taylor’s resisting or obstructing a police officer conviction. “In Morris, the defendant’s refusal to comply with the police officer’s commands, the defendant’s admission that he was uncooperative, the defendant’s pulling his arm away, and the physical struggle between the defendant and the police officers supported a conviction under MCL 750.81d(1).” Similarly, here, the jury could have reasonably found that defendant resisted or obstructed a police officer. The officers were forced to remove his outer clothing when he refused to comply with the officers' request that he remove his clothing. His refusal constituted resistance, particularly in the context of his pacing, yelling, swearing, and stance during booking. Taylor argued that Officer O’s testimony that he did not hinder the officers too badly showed that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for resisting or obstructing a police officer. However, this testimony supported a finding that he resisted or obstructed the officers because it showed that he defied their orders. Thus, a rational jury could have found that he resisted or obstructed a police officer. Taylor did not challenge any other element of the offense, including whether he knew that the officers were officers or whether their actions were lawful. Moreover, O testified that the police officers were in uniform. O also explained that “officers typically ask a person who has been arrested to remove most of their clothing during booking for safety reasons, such as preventing someone from hiding additional weapons or using a piece of clothing to harm himself or another person.” Affirmed.