People v. Hull
| Decision Date | 01 February 2022 |
| Docket Number | 354667[1],354735 |
| Parties | PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRANDI MARIE HULL, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ANTHONY RAY HULL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
UNPUBLISHED
Tuscola Circuit Court LC Nos. 19-015018-FH, 19-015020-FH
Before: Mark J. Cavanagh, P.J., and Shapiro and Michael F Gadola, JJ.
In Docket No. 354667, Brandi Marie Hull appeals as of right her jury trial conviction of assaulting, battering, resisting obstructing, opposing a police officer (resisting and obstructing), MCL 750.81d(1). Brandi was sentenced to two days in jail for her resisting and obstructing conviction. On appeal, Brandi argues the trial court erred in finding there was sufficient evidence to convict her of resisting and obstructing a police officer, and that she was denied effective assistance of counsel because of trial counsel's failure to request a jury instruction regarding the right to resist an unlawful arrest. We affirm.
In Docket No. 354735, Anthony Ray Hull appeals as of right his jury trial conviction of resisting and obstructing a police officer, MCL 750.81d(1). Anthony was sentenced to 90 days in jail for his resisting and obstructing conviction. On appeal, Anthony argues the trial court erred in finding there was sufficient evidence to convict him of resisting and obstructing a police officer. In addition, Anthony argues the trial court abused its discretion by admitting irrelevant evidence, permitting the prosecutor to ask police officers for legal conclusions while precluding certain questions by his trial counsel, and permitting the prosecutor to pose argumentative questions. We affirm.
This case arises from the execution of an arrest warrant for Brandi. On an evening in October 2019, Kingston Police Chief Albert Pearsall III went to defendants' residence to execute an arrest warrant for "Brandi Schook." Before arriving at the residence, Chief Pearsall contacted central dispatch, which confirmed the arrest warrant was valid using the Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN). Because Chief Pearsall did not have a physical copy of the arrest warrant, central dispatch also provided additional information to Chief Pearsall, including Brandi Schook's date of birth and that the reason for the warrant was a violation for excessive noise or a loud exhaust. When Chief Pearsall arrived at the residence, he was in full uniform, with a fully-marked police vehicle. Chief Pearsall also had an individual, Jay Petrica, with him, who was observing Chief Pearsall as a ride-along.
After first approaching the front door of the house, Chief Pearsall went to a side door that led to a wooden porch, while Petrica remained at the front door. Brandi then emerged from the front door and Chief Pearsall returned from the side door and identified himself. Brandi recognized Chief Pearsall as a police officer from seeing him at her job as a convenience store clerk. Once Chief Pearsall identified himself as a police officer Brandi stated, "I know who you are." Chief Pearsall told Brandi he had an arrest warrant for her for excessive noise, which Brandi denied, stating she had never been stopped on such a charge. Brandi also initially denied that her name was Brandi Schook, but later clarified she recently married Anthony, changing her name from Brandi Schook to Brandi Hull.
At this point the front door again opened and Anthony emerged from the house. Brandi told Anthony about the warrant for her arrest, and Anthony told Chief Pearsall that he was on "private property" and told Brandi to go back into the house. While Brandi stood between Anthony and Chief Pearsall, attempting to deescalate the situation, Chief Pearsall grabbed Brandi's arm because he did not want to "lose custody of the prisoner," and Anthony grabbed Brandi's other arm. Pearsall testified at trial that he was worried that Brandi and Anthony might have access to firearms in the house, especially considering that he was the only officer present, and additional police officers were 10 minutes away. Chief Pearsall told Anthony to stop, and that he had an arrest warrant for Brandi; however, Anthony pushed Brandi into the house, went into the house himself, and closed the front door. As the front door closed, Chief Pearsall attempted to stop the door from closing, wedging his boot in the doorway. After damaging the doorframe, the front door closed, knocking Chief Pearsall backward, and Chief Pearsall and Petrica retreated to the police vehicle.
Shortly thereafter, Michigan State Police Trooper Dan Reynolds, Trooper Jason Baxter, Trooper Tyler Schuiteman, Trooper Michael Jarosiewicz, and Tuscola County Sheriff's Deputy Ryan LaFlure arrived at the scene. Trooper Reynolds and Deputy LaFlure each verified the arrest warrant was valid in LEIN. After about 20 minutes, Brandi and Anthony came out of the house. Trooper Reynolds testified that Brandi was "verbally defiant," "argumentative," and would not listen to the police officers' commands, insisting she did not have a warrant. Trooper Reynolds obtained a copy of the warrant from LEIN and showed it to Brandi, explaining the arrest warrant "was titled excessive noise, but in the remarks it was failure to appear to a [driving while license suspended] charge." Brandi "agreed to finally cooperate," however, Trooper Reynolds "almost had to pick her up and carry her" to the police vehicle. Brandi continued to argue whether the information in the warrant was correct.
Brandi and Anthony were tried together. Sheila Long, a court administrator for the Tuscola County courts, testified when a warrant is entered into LEIN, a four-digit number, which corresponds with count I in a complaint, is required to specify certain offenses. For a reason unknown to Long, a blanket code is used for certain charges and displayed, in LEIN, as an excessive noise or loud exhaust charge. Long stated a warrant clerk will typically include additional information regarding the charges, including the MCL statutes charged to the individual, in the remarks section of the warrant. Brandi testified, admitting she recognized Chief Pearsall as a police officer at the time of the incident. Brandi stated that when she and Anthony went back into the house, Anthony called 911 to request additional information and for additional officers to come to the house. At the time of the incident, Brandi did not know why there was an arrest warrant and disagreed with Chief Pearsall, believing it to be a mistake, and asked the police officers to see the warrant while she was being handcuffed. Brandi also testified regarding her previous citations, stating before the incident, in April 2018, she was pulled over by a Tuscola County Sheriff's Deputy Christopher Whetstone and given a citation for driving while license suspended (DWLS), MCL 257.904, no proof of insurance, MCL 500.3102, and a broken taillight. The next day, Brandi learned her driver's license was suspended because she failed to pay a driver's responsibility fine from a prior citation in another county, which she paid to reinstate her driver's license. In June 2019, Brandi received a letter instructing her to go to the Tuscola County Police Department for fingerprinting. Brandi reported to the police department and was instructed to go to the Tuscola County Magistrate's Office. An unidentified employee told Brandi that she failed to take care of her April 2018 citation but if she paid the fines, it would be resolved. Later that week, Anthony paid the outstanding fines on Brandi's behalf and received a receipt. In September 2019, Brandi was scheduled for an arraignment regarding her DWLS and no insurance charges but failed to appear, resulting in a warrant being entered into the LEIN. Brandi admitted she never went to the Tuscola County courthouse and pleaded to the charges on her April 2018 citation, stating when she received a letter in August 2019 about the charges, she called the courthouse and told an individual that she had taken care of it. However, the register of actions regarding the April 2018 citation did not indicate a telephone call from Brandi. Brandi stated she had no knowledge of a DWLS charge, but if Chief Pearsall said the arrest warrant was for DWLS she would have shown her receipt.
Anthony testified, admitting that Chief Pearsall said he had an arrest warrant for Brandi, but denying he knew Chief Pearsall was a police officer. Anthony did not believe the arrest warrant for excessive noise or loud exhaust was valid, leading him to push Brandi into the house. However, Anthony stated if he knew the warrant was for Brandi's DWLS charge, he would have reacted differently. Anthony further stated he never touched Chief Pearsall, or slammed the front door shut on Chief Pearsall, during the incident.
After the presentation of the evidence, and during jury deliberations, the jury submitted several questions to the trial court, including (1) "[i]f being arrested, do you have to be told what the warrant is for at the time of the arrest[;]" (2) "[a]re there reasonable exceptions for resisting under duress[;]" (3) "[i]s there a legal definition of opposed similar to how obstruct is defined in our instructions[;]" and (4) "[w]hat happens if we cannot reach a mutual verdict?" To each of these questions, the trial court answered, and the parties agreed, "[y]ou must rely on the jury instructions on the law which were provided to you . . . and the definitions provided to you in the jury instructions." Additionally the trial court gave an additional deadlock jury instruction, stating to the jury that Brandi and Anthony had their own verdict form and emphasizing that each juror should ...
To continue reading
Request your trial