People v. Landrie
| Decision Date | 08 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 62054 |
| Citation | 335 N.W.2d 11,124 Mich.App. 480 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert A. LANDRIE, Defendant-Appellant. 124 Mich.App. 480, 335 N.W.2d 11 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[124 MICHAPP 481] Sumpter & Loznak, P.C. by Jerry L. Sumpter, Cheboygan, for defendant-appellant.
Before WALSH, P.J., and ALLEN and CAVANAGH, JJ.
Defendant was convicted of interfering with a police officer maintaining the peace, M.C.L. Sec. 750.479; M.S.A. Sec. 28.747. He appeals by right, raising four issues for our consideration.
Defendant first argues that, since the information stated that a police officer was "attempting to apprehend the defendant for malicious destruction of property", the prosecutor was required to show the essential elements of resisting arrest. Since the prosecutor did not show the requisite elements, the defendant maintains that the proofs were fatally defective.
The information clearly states that the resistance occurred when the police officer was attempting to apprehend the defendant. It is established law in this state that a person may use such [124 MICHAPP 482] reasonable force as is necessary to resist an illegal arrest. People v. Krum, 374 Mich. 356, 361, 132 N.W.2d 69 (1965), cert. den. 381 U.S. 935, 85 S.Ct. 1765, 14 L.Ed.2d 699 (1965). Where a defendant is being seized, apprehended or arrested, the illegality of the seizure is a complete defense to the charge of resisting an officer making an arrest. Thus, in order to prove that the defendant's resistance was illegal, the prosecutor had to show that the police officer had a legal right to apprehend the defendant and, in order to convict the defendant of resisting arrest, the jury had to consider whether the defendant was lawfully resisting an illegal arrest.
However, the prosecutor's proofs and the instructions given to the jury dealt with interference with a police officer maintaining the peace and that is the crime of which the defendant was convicted. The confusion on this issue appears to stem from the fact that the information charged the defendant with resisting an arrest but the prosecutor shifted his emphasis at trial to a charge of interference with a police officer maintaining the peace. This may have occurred because the willful destruction of property charge against the defendant, which formed the basis of the police officer's right to arrest the defendant, was dismissed.
The police officer's testimony at trial indicates that he intended to arrest the defendant for malicious destruction of property. If the defendant's actions did obstruct, resist, or oppose the police officer's efforts, he was resisting an attempted arrest and was entitled to a jury instruction on resisting an arrest. See CJI 13:1:02. We hold that failure to give the jury such an instruction constitutes reversible error.
[124 MICHAPP 483] We can dispose of the defendant's remaining issues on appeal with little comment. First, the defendant was not entitled to have his case dismissed after the prosecutor's opening statement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Chatfield
...that resisting and obstructing an arrest is a specific intent crime. This argument is without merit. People v. Landrie, [143 MICHAPP 547] 124 Mich.App. 480, 483, 335 N.W.2d 11 (1983); People v. VanWasshenova, 121 Mich.App. 672, 680, 329 N.W.2d 452 (1982); People v. Gleisner, Defendant reaso......
-
People v. Dalton
...a lawful arrest is an element of the offense of resisting arrest, M.C.L. Sec. 750.479; M.S.A. Sec. 28.747, People v. Landrie, 124 Mich.App. 480, 482, 335 N.W.2d 11 (1983). Thus, when a suspect is tried for resisting arrest, the lawfulness of an arrest, which is generally a question of law d......
-
People v. Philabaun, Docket No. 114405.
...453, 455-456, 166 N.W.2d 477 (1968). 8. People v. Kelley, 78 Mich.App. 769, 772-773, 260 N.W.2d 923 (1977). 9. People v. Landrie, 124 Mich.App. 480, 483, 335 N.W.2d 11 (1983). 10. People v. Pohl, 207 Mich.App. 332, 523 N.W.2d 634 11.People v. Gaydosh, 203 Mich.App. 235, 512 N.W.2d 65 (1994)......
-
People v. Philabaun
...opinions of this Court have suggested that a resisting or obstructing charge requires "active interference." In People v. Landrie, 124 Mich.App. 480, 335 N.W.2d 11 (1983), the Court noted that "[t]he only evidence of interference was that the defendant left the scene after the officer had s......