State v. Dowd
| Citation | 411 S.E.2d 428,306 S.C. 268 |
| Decision Date | 07 October 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 23508,23508 |
| Parties | The STATE, Respondent, v. Ronald W. DOWD, Appellant. . Heard |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
Edward M. Sauvain, Greenville, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. T. Travis Medlock, Asst. Attys. Gen. Harold M. Coombs, Jr., E. Jean Howard, and Amie L. Clifford, Columbia, and Sol. Holman C. Gossett, Jr., Spartanburg, for respondent.
Ronald W. Dowd (Dowd) appeals his conviction of resisting arrest. We affirm.
Dowd was charged with driving under the influence after police officers were called to the scene of an automobile accident. He was transported to the City Jail, booked and given a breathalyzer test which registered a blood alcohol content of .17 percent.
In the course of being placed in a cell by the arresting officer, Dowd stuck his arm and leg in the doorway, preventing the door from closing. Two officers then assisted in forcing Dowd back into the cell. In the struggle Dowd's arm was broken and he was taken to the hospital.
At trial, Dowd claimed that his arrest was final and complete when he submitted to the arresting officer at the scene of the accident, so that any unlawful resistance thereafter could not constitute the crime of resisting arrest. 1
Was Dowd entitled to a new trial on the basis that there was no evidence of resisting arrest?
The question of when an arrest is completed is a novel issue in this State. However, it has been directly addressed by our sister state, North Carolina, in State v. Leak, 11 N.C.App. 344, 181 S.E.2d 224 (1971).
In Leak the defendant was found guilty of resisting arrest for striking a police officer as he was escorted from the magistrate's office to the jail. The court, in affirming the conviction, held:
An arrest does not necessarily terminate the instant a person is taken into custody; arrest also includes 'bringing the person personally within the custody and control of the law.' The arrest of the defendant in the instant case did not terminate until he was delivered to the jailer and properly confined.
Leak, 181 S.E.2d at 226 [quoting Hadley v. Tinnin, 170 N.C. 84, 86 S.E. 1017 (1915) ]. See also State v. Mallett, 542 S.W.2d 584, 587 (Mo.Ct.App.1976) (); Pope v. State, 528 S.W.2d 54, 58 (Tenn.Crim.App.1975) ().
We agree with the reasoning in both Leak and those jurisdictions which hold that an arrest is an ongoing process, finalized only when the defendant is properly confined. Here, since Dowd...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brannon
...law has recognized that an arrest is an ongoing process, finalized only when the defendant is properly confined. State v. Dowd, 306 S.C. 268, 270, 411 S.E.2d 428, 429 (1991). However, there is a paucity of law defining when an arrest In State v. Williams, 237 S.C. 252, 116 S.E.2d 858 (1960)......
-
The State v. Brannon
...elements to determine when an arrest has occurred, an arrest, itself, is an “ongoing process” in South Carolina. State v. Dowd, 306 S.C. 268, 270, 411 S.E.2d 428, 429 (1991). In this case, consistent with the plain language of section 16-9-320(A), we must determine whether an arrest was bei......
-
Murphy v. the State
...resisting arrest conviction, holding the arrest did not conclude until the defendant was locked in his jail cell. 306 S.C. 268, 270, 411 S.E.2d 428, 429 (1991). In rejecting the argument that the arrest ended upon being taken into custody, the court defined arrest as “an ongoing process, fi......
-
State v. Garvin, 3130.
...of Garvin, they came to the aid of the custodial officer when Garvin resisted her authority. This case is controlled by State v. Dowd, 306 S.C. 268, 411 S.E.2d 428 (1991). In Dowd, the defendant was taken into custody at the roadside. He was taken to a room at the city jail where the Breath......