People v. Vater
| Decision Date | 29 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | 359800 |
| Parties | PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NOBLE DAVID VATER II, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
UNPUBLISHED
Calhoun Circuit Court LC No. 2020-000008-FH
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and K. F. Kelly and Garrett, JJ.
A jury convicted defendant, Noble David Vater II, of two counts of resisting and obstructing a police officer, MCL 750.81d(1) and one count of assault and battery, MCL 750.81(1). Vater's sentence included court costs. Vater seeks reversal of his convictions and vacatur of the court costs arguing that the trial court improperly instructed the jury that insufficient evidence supported his resisting and obstructing convictions, and that the statute authorizing court costs is unconstitutional. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm.
This case stems from Vater's arrest in Calhoun Circuit Court Judge Brian Kirkham's courtroom. Vater had a child custody case before Judge Kirkham and was upset with how Judge Kirkham was handling the case. Vater sat in Judge Kirkham's courtroom over a two-week period observing various proceedings, although he did not have a case on the docket during that time. On December 9, 2019, at the conclusion of the morning docket, Vater approached the bench as Judge Kirkham was exiting the courtroom. Judge Kirkham's bailiff, Officer Crystal Watson, was still present. Additionally, a Friend of the Court employee, Jeffrey Chapman, was standing at the podium after finishing arraignments. Vater stood up and walked through the swinging doors into the area limited to authorized personnel, stating that he needed to speak with the judge.
Officer Watson placed her body between the judge and Vater, telling Vater that he could not follow the judge into chambers. Vater continued to repeat that he needed to speak with the judge, while Officer Watson continued to refuse him access. Officer Watson then told Vater that he needed to leave. Chapman did the same. Vater refused to leave, called Officer Watson and Chapman liars, and continued to demand to speak with the judge. Christy Woodard, judicial clerk to Judge Kirkham, was sent into the courtroom by the judge to check on the bailiff because the judge heard a conflict. Woodard entered the courtroom and observed Vater two feet in front of Officer Watson, yelling at her. Woodard also told Vater that he needed to leave. Vater did not comply, so Woodard and Officer Watson called for security.
Deputy Matthew Hartig, Corrections Deputy for the Calhoun County Sheriffs Office, responded to the call for assistance within about two minutes. He observed Vater in a verbal confrontation with Woodard and Officer Watson. Deputy Hartig asked Woodard and Officer Watson if Vater needed to leave. Both confirmed that he did need to leave and that he had attempted to get past them to chambers. Deputy Hartig directed Vater to turn around and place his hands behind his back. Vater responded, "no, sir," and attempted to step toward the chambers door. Deputy Hartig took control of Vater's arm, but Vater was pulling away from him and fell on top of Deputy Hartig on the floor. Deputy Hartig called out for assistance.
Chapman tried to intervene by pulling Vater off Deputy Hartig. Vater bit Chapman on the right arm. Chapman and Deputy Hartig could not gain control of Vater. Deputy Teddy Warden, employed by the Calhoun County Sheriffs Office as court security, arrived to see Chapman and Deputy Hartig "tussling" with Vater on the floor. Deputies Warden and Hartig gave loud verbal commands to Vater to stop resisting, and Deputy Warden tried to take control of Vater's left arm. Vater continued to resist, keeping his arms tucked under his chest. Deputy Hartig warned Vater that if he did not comply he would be tased. Vater refused to comply, and Deputy Hartig tased him. Vater continued to struggle with the officers after he was tased.
Lieutenant Matthew Gault, who at that time was working as a transport sergeant for the Calhoun County Sheriffs Office, arrived after Vater was tased. Lieutenant Gault observed the officers and Chapman struggling with Vater. He also observed Vater ignore the officers' commands and continue to struggle. Lieutenant Gault delivered two brachial plexus stuns to Vater's neck that were meant to secure control of Vater. Simultaneously, Deputy Hartig delivered a second Taser stun to Vater. Vater finally complied with the officers' commands and was handcuffed. Lieutenant Gault interviewed Vater after he was transported to jail. Vater admitted that his intention was to confront Judge Kirkham and that he was attempting to step around Officer Watson to access the judge's chambers.
At trial, the prosecution presented testimony from the relevant witnesses and played courtroom video of the incident for the jury. The jury acquitted Vater of one count of resisting and obstructing as to Lieutenant Gault, but convicted him of two counts of resisting and obstructing as to Deputy Hartig and Deputy Warden. He was also convicted of one count of assault and battery on Chapman. The trial court sentenced Vater to 18 months' probation and imposed court costs of $440. Vater now appeals as of right.
First, Vater argues that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury by omitting an element of the resisting and obstructing charge. "A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to have a jury determine his or her guilt from its consideration of every essential element of the charged offense." People v Kowalski, 489 Mich. 488, 501; 803 N.W.2d 200 (2011). Thus, "[j]ury instructions must include all the elements of the charged offense, and must not exclude material issues, defenses, or theories if the evidence supports them." People v Kosik, 303 Mich.App. 146, 155; 841 N.W.2d 906 (2013). The elements for resisting and obstructing are (1) "the defendant assaulted, battered, wounded, resisted, obstructed, opposed, or endangered a police officer," (2) "the defendant knew or had reason to know that the person that the defendant assaulted, battered, wounded, resisted, obstructed, opposed, or endangered was a police officer performing his or her duties," and (3) that the officer's actions were lawful. People v Quinn, 305 Mich.App. 484, 491-492; 853 N.W.2d 383 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). For the third element, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officer "gave the defendant a lawful command, was making a lawful arrest, or was otherwise performing a lawful act." M Crim JI 13.1. The trial omitted this third element of the resisting and obstructing offense during each reading of its instructions to the jury.
Vater, however, waived any claim of instructional error. Waiver is distinct from forfeiture. Waiver is "the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right," whereas "forfeiture is the "failure to make the timely assertion of a right." People v Carter, 462 Mich. 206, 215; 612 N.W.2d 144 (2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted). A defendant "who waives his rights under a rule may not then seek appellate review of a claimed deprivation of those rights, for his waiver has extinguished any error." Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). This Court has "consistently held that an affirmative statement that there are no objections to the jury instructions constitutes express approval of the instructions, thereby waiving review of any error on appeal." People v Kowalski, 489 Mich. 488, 505 n 28; 803 N.W.2d 200 (2011). Put differently, "[w]hen the trial court asks whether a party has any objections to the jury instructions and the party responds negatively, it is an affirmative approval of the trial court's instructions." People v Miller, 326 Mich.App. 719, 726; 929 N.W.2d 821 (2019). "The failure to object, on the other hand, qualifies as forfeiture and is reviewable for plain error." People v Hershey, 303 Mich.App. 330, 349; 844 N.W.2d 127 (2013).
Before voir dire, the trial court gave the erroneous resisting-and-obstructing instruction to the jury. When asked by the trial court before and after jury selection whether he had any corrections or objections to the instructions, Vater responded, "None that I see, your Honor," and "No, your Honor."[1] After the close of proofs, the trial court provided both parties with printouts of the proposed final jury instructions. The court asked Vater before and after reading the final instructions to the jury whether he had any objections, and both times he stated, "No, your Honor." These statements constituted clear and affirmative satisfaction with the trial court's instructions. Consequently, "by expressly and repeatedly approving the jury instructions on the record, defendant waived any objection to the erroneous instructions, and there is no error to review." Kowalski, 489 Mich. at 504.[2]
Next Vater argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his resisting and obstructing convictions because the prosecution failed to prove that the officers' actions were lawful. We review claims of insufficient evidence de novo. People v Kanaan, 278 Mich.App. 594, 618; 751 N.W.2d 57 (2008). That means "we review the issues independently, with no required deference to the trial court." People v Beck, 504 Mich. 605, 618; 939 N.W.2d 213 (2019). Due process requires the prosecutor to introduce evidence sufficient for a trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318; 99 S.Ct. 2781; 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); People v Hampton, 407 Mich. 354, 368; 285 N.W.2d 284 (1979). When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the question is "whether, after viewing the evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial