People v. Gray, Docket No. 7790--1
| Decision Date | 31 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,Docket No. 7790--1,3 |
| Citation | 178 N.W.2d 172,23 Mich.App. 139 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J. C. GRAY, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Homer Arnett Kalamazoo, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Donald A. Burge, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before R. B. BURNS, P.J., and FITZGERALD and LEVIN, JJ.
Defendant J. C. Gray was arrested on September 21, 1967, in the city of Kalamazoo and charged with unlawfully interfering with police officers in the performance of their duties in violation of the provisions of C.L.1948, § 750.479 (Stat.Ann. $ 28.747).
The record discloses the following events which terminated in defendant's arrest. William Gray, defendant's brother, was observed driving his automobile in a reckless manner. A police officer followed him to his mother's residence where the officer called to the subject saying, 'Come here, I want to talk to you.' Gray gave no heed to the directive and continued on into the house. In response to a call for assistance, two more officers arrived at the scene. The officers stood on the porch and conversed with the subject's mother, whereupon William Gray came out of the house and was placed under arrest for reckless driving. Unwilling to submit to his fate so passively, Gray attempted to run back into the house but was temporarily subdued by the arresting officer. Defendant, who was also present on the porch got hold of the officer's arm, thus freeing his brother who ran into the house. He was captured and again restrained near the back door of the home where defendant intervened for the second time by knocking the officer off balance and closing the door while William Gray made good his escape. Two criminal cases involving obstructing, resisting, opposing, and assaulting two officers were tried together. Defendant was found guilty in each case by a jury, was sentenced and now brings this appeal.
The questions to which this appeal is directed are whether the officers were engaged in a lawful arrest and whether defendant interfered with the officers while performing their duties.
Defendant contends that the police failed to make an immediate arrest as the law requires. He argues that since his arrest was not immediate it was illegal and he cannot be charged with resisting the officers. The people contend that the arrest was immediate and rely on a continuity of action from the time of the reckless driving until the arrest of William Gray was completed.
An examination of applicable law discloses that any peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person for the commission of any felony or misdemeanor committed in his presence. C.L.1948, § 764.15 (Stat.Ann.1954 Rev. § 28.874). Such an arrest must be made immediately. People v. Johnson (1891), 86 Mich. 175, 48 N.W. 870. If the officers had a right to arrest William Gray without a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Chatfield
...327 N.W.2d 474 (1982); People v. Eisenberg, 72 Mich.App. 106, 249 N.W.2d 313 (1976), lv. den. 401 Mich. 803 (1977); People v. Gray, 23 Mich.App. 139, 178 N.W.2d 172 (1970).I note, however, that outside this state the modern trend has been away from this common law rule toward a rule which p......
-
People v. Berthiaume
...Mich. 45, 60, 219 N.W.2d 422, 428 (1974). Cf. People v. Ballenberger, 51 Mich.App. 353, 356, 214 N.W.2d 742 (1974); People v. Gray, 23 Mich.App. 139, 178 N.W.2d 172 (1970). The question of the sufficiency of the time lapse required for premeditation could have been resolved by considering t......
-
People v. Eisenberg, Docket No. 20495
...381 U.S. 935, 85 S.Ct. 1765, 14 L.Ed.2d 699 (1965), People v. Bonello, 25 Mich.App. 600, 181 N.W.2d 652 (1970), People v. Gray, 23 Mich.App. 139, 178 N.W.2d 172 (1970). The right to resist an unlawful arrest, however, is merely one aspect of self-defense. An unlawful arrest is nothing more ......
-
People v. Strelow
...the purpose for delay and the actual length of time between criminal act and arrest. See 58 A.L.R.2d 1056. In People v. Gray, 23 Mich.App. 139, 178 N.W.2d 172 (1970), the officer followed a reckless driver until he reached his residence. The officer called additional units to his location, ......