People v. Ventura

• Decision Date: 18 August 2004
• Docket Number: Docket No. 248064.
• Citation: 686 N.W.2d 748,262 Mich.App. 370
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael Aaron VENTURA, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

686 N.W.2d 748

262 Mich.App. 370

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael Aaron VENTURA, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 248064.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted June 2, 2004, at Lansing.

Decided June 10, 2004, at 9:10 a.m.

Released for Publication August 18, 2004.

Michael A. Cox, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, David L. Morse, Prosecuting Attorney, and William J. Vailliencourt, Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Heather K. Suthpin and Michael P. Hatty, Howell, Brighton, for the defendant.

Before: HOEKSTRA, P.J., and O'CONNELL and DONOFRIO, JJ.

DONOFRIO, J.

The prosecution appeals as of right from an order granting defendant's motion to quash the information and dismiss the case. Because we disagree with the trial court's finding that MCL 750.81d requires a showing that defendant's arrest was lawful, we reverse.

Substantive Facts and Procedural History

Defendant, a minor at the time of the offense at issue, was charged under the assault chapter of the Michigan Penal Code with assaulting, resisting, and obstructing a police officer, MCL 750.81d, and also with being a minor in possession of alcohol, MCL 436.1703(1)(a). Officer Robert Light testified to the following at the preliminary hearing. On October 26, 2002, Officer Light went to defendant's residence around 8:15 p.m. to investigate a complaint about a stolen handgun. Officer Light testified that he initially spoke with defendant and noticed an odor of alcohol coming from defendant's breath. Officer Light knew defendant was a minor and asked him if he would submit to a preliminary breath test. Defendant initially agreed, but then pulled away. Officer Light asked defendant to blow out a "nice strong breath" and the officer observed a strong odor of alcohol and believed he might be intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol.

On the basis of his observations of defendant and the odor of alcohol on defendant's breath, Officer Light informed defendant that he was under arrest. Officer Light grabbed one of defendant's arms to place defendant in handcuffs, but defendant broke free of the officer's grasp. Defendant's sister jumped on the officer's back and started scratching and clawing at his face. After receiving assistance from other officers at the scene, Officer Light was finally able to get defendant handcuffed by utilizing pressure points underneath defendant's nose and chin and placed him under arrest.

Defendant moved to suppress the evidence and to dismiss the charges. Defendant's counsel stated that the officer thought he smelled alcohol on defendant's breath, but when the other officers searched the house, there was no alcohol in the house. Defendant's counsel further argued that, pursuant to People v. Rutledge, 250 Mich.App. 1, 645 N.W.2d 333 (2002), once alcohol is in one's system, it is no longer possessed or consumed. The prosecutor responded that Officer Light had permission to go into the home, and while conducting his investigation, he smelled the odor of alcohol on defendant, who was under twenty-one years of age. The trial court made its ruling from the bench the next day. The trial court granted defendant's motion. The trial court reasoned:

He was arrested for minor in possession, having consumed alcohol. The record in this case indicates that the only possession that was involved was that which was not analyzed coming from his stomach. I'm satisfied that what might be in his stomach would not be a valid reason for arresting for possession of alcohol and so I'm disregarding that as the basis for the arrest.

The trial court continued by stating it was clear there was no direct evidence of the consumption of alcoholic beverages by defendant. The trial court then stated that the question was whether the officer could arrest someone in his home without a warrant for consumption of alcohol. Because the consumption obviously did not take place in the presence of the officer, the trial court was satisfied that the officer did not have the right to arrest defendant.

The trial court stated the next question was whether defendant had the right to resist the illegal arrest in his home. The trial court continued:

I say yes. I know that under our new statute we don't have definitive definitions from the appellate courts. Under the old statute there was the right to resist an illegal arrest. I construe a reasonable interpretation of the current statute to prohibit — to allow an illegal arrest in someone's cutilidge [sic] and that's what took place here. I'm satisfied that the motion to quash in this case should be granted.

The court later entered an order consistent with its bench rulings. It is from this order that the prosecutor appeals.

Analysis

The prosecutor argues the trial court erred when it dismissed the assaulting, resisting, and obstructing charge on the basis of defendant's right to resist an illegal arrest where the lawfulness of an arrest is not an element under the amended assault chapter, MCL 750.81d.¹ Defendant counters that a reasonable interpretation of MCL 750.81d, while taking into account decades of common law and public policy, would be that the Legislature intended that officers still must lawfully arrest citizens. We review this question of statutory interpretation de novo. People v. Davis, 468 Mich. 77, 79, 658 N.W.2d 800 (2003).

I

It has been long-standing law in Michigan that under the common law and the earlier resisting arrest statute, MCL 750.479, that "one may use such reasonable force as is necessary to prevent an illegal attachment and to resist an illegal arrest." People v. Krum, 374 Mich. 356, 361, 132 N.W.2d 69 (1965); see also People v. Wess, 235 Mich.App. 241, 244, 597 N.W.2d 215 (1999). The prior resisting arrest statute, MCL 750.479, stated in relevant part:

Any person who shall knowingly and willfully ... obstruct, resist, oppose, assault, beat or wound ... any person or persons authorized by law to maintain and preserve the peace, in their lawful acts, attempts and efforts to maintain, preserve and keep the peace shall be guilty of a misdemeanor....

This Court has stated the elements of resisting arrest under MCL 750.479 were: (1) the defendant resisted arrest, (2) the arrest was lawful, (3) the person arresting the defendant was an officer of the law at the time, (4) the defendant knew the person was an officer, (5) the defendant knew the person was making an arrest, and (6) the defendant intended to resist. People v. MacLeod, 254 Mich.App. 222, 226, 656 N.W.2d 844 (2002), citing MCL 750.479; People v. Little, 434 Mich. 752, 755 n. 5, 456 N.W.2d 237 (1990). Therefore, under MCL 750.749, the right to resist an unlawful arrest was, in essence, a defense to the charge of resisting arrest, because the legality of the arrest was an element of the charged offense. People v. Rice, 192 Mich. App. 240, 243, 481 N.W.2d 10 (1991).

On May 9, 2002, MCL 750.81d was enacted. It states in relevant part:

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2), (3), and (4), an individual who assaults, batters, wounds, resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his or her duties is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.

The trial court found that the newly enacted statute, MCL 750.81d, also requires a showing of a lawful arrest.

"The goal of judicial interpretation of a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature." Davis, supra, 468 Mich. at 79,658 N.W.2d 800 citing People v. Pasha, 466 Mich. 378, 382, 645 N.W.2d 275 (2002). To accomplish this objective, the court must begin by examining the language of the statute. Id. "If the language is clear and unambiguous, `no further construction is necessary or allowed to expand what the Legislature clearly intended to cover.'" Id., quoting Pasha, supra, 466 Mich. at 382, 645 N.W.2d 275. "[A] court may read nothing into an unambiguous statute that is not within the manifest intent of the Legislature as derived from the words of the statute itself." Id., quoting Roberts v. Mecosta Co. Gen. Hosp., 466 Mich. 57, 63, 642 N.W.2d 663 (2002). This Court has also stated:

"Courts must read the statutory language being construed in light of the general purpose sought to be accomplished. Where the language is so plain as to leave no room for interpretation, courts should not read into it words that are not there or that cannot fairly be implied." [People v. Ramsdell, 230 Mich.App. 386, 393, 585 N.W.2d 1 (1998), quoting Lumley v. Univ. of Michigan Bd. of Regents, 215 Mich.App. 125, 129, 544 N.W.2d 692 (1996) (citations omitted).]

Examining the language of the MCL 750.81d, unlike in MCL 750.479, we find no reference to the lawfulness of the arrest or detaining act. The language of MCL 750.81d is abundantly clear and states only that an individual who resists a person the individual knows or has reason to know is performing his duties is guilty of a felony. MCL 750.81d. Because the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, further construction is neither necessary nor permitted, and we decline...