Opinion
No. 335103
12-12-2017
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DARNELL ALLEN TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.
UNPUBLISHED Washtenaw Circuit Court
LC No. 15-000549-FH Before: O'CONNELL, P.J., and BECKERING and STEPHENS, JJ. PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Darnell Allen Taylor, appeals as of right a judgment of sentence for convictions for resisting or obstructing a police officer, MCL 750.81d(1), and refusing fingerprints, MCL 28.243a(1). The trial court sentenced Taylor to one year of probation for resisting or obstructing a police officer and 34 days in county jail, with credit for 34 days' time served, for refusing fingerprints. Taylor challenges the conviction for resisting or obstructing a police officer. We affirm the conviction.
I. BACKGROUND
Police officers responded to a call about a man in a parking lot holding a gun while shouting at another man. A police officer found a gun in Taylor's pocket and arrested Taylor because he did not have a permit to carry a concealed pistol. Officer Zachary Owens took Taylor to the police station for booking. During the booking process, Taylor paced the room, yelled and swore at the police officers, and tensed his body and drew back his arms in what resembled a fighting stance. Taylor refused to comply with the police officers' request that he remove his outer clothing during the booking process, so the police officers removed it for him. Describing Taylor's reaction to the police officers removing his clothing, Owens testified, Taylor "certainly didn't help, but he didn't really hinder us too bad."
The prosecution charged Taylor with carrying a concealed weapon, MCL 750.227, resisting or obstructing a police officer, MCL 750.81d(1), and refusing fingerprints, MCL 28.243a(1). The jury found Taylor not guilty of the concealed weapon charge but guilty of the other two charges. On appeal, Taylor argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for resisting or obstructing a police officer, MCL 750.81d(1).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. People v Solloway, 316 Mich App 174, 180; 891 NW2d 255 (2016). We consider "the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution" to determine "whether a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." People v Hardiman, 466 Mich 417, 421; 646 NW2d 158 (2002). Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from the evidence are sufficient to prove elements of the offense. Solloway, 316 Mich App at 181.
III. DISCUSSION
To obtain a conviction for resisting or obstructing a police officer under MCL 750.81d(1), the prosecution must prove that "(1) the defendant assaulted, battered, wounded, resisted, obstructed, opposed, or endangered a police officer, and (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." People v Vandenberg, 307 Mich App 57, 68; 859 NW2d 229 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The prosecution must also show that "the officers' actions were lawful." Vandenberg, 307 Mich App at 68 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Obstruction "includes the use or threatened use of physical interference or force or a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command." MCL 750.81d(7)(a). Obstruction does not require the defendant to run away or physically assault the police officers, only to take "the requisite physical action to prevent a police officer from performing his lawful duties." People v Morris, 314 Mich App 399, 414; 886 NW2d 910 (2016). In Morris, the defendant's refusal to comply with the police officer's commands, the defendant's admission that he was uncooperative, the defendant's pulling his arm away, and the physical struggle between the defendant and the police officers supported a conviction under MCL 750.81d(1). Id. at 415.
Similarly, in this case, the jury could have reasonably found that Taylor resisted or obstructed a police officer. The police officers were forced to remove Taylor's outer clothing when he refused to comply with the police officer's request that he remove his clothing. Taylor's refusal constituted resistance, particularly in the context of Taylor's pacing, yelling, swearing, and stance during booking.
Taylor argues that Owens's testimony that Taylor did not hinder the officers too badly shows that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for resisting or obstructing a police officer. However, this testimony supports a finding that Taylor resisted or obstructed the police officers because it shows that Taylor defied their orders. Therefore, a rational jury could have found that Taylor resisted or obstructed a police officer.
Taylor does not challenge any other element of the offense, including whether he knew that the police officers were police officers or whether their actions were lawful. Moreover, Owens testified that the police officers were in uniform. Owens also explained that police officers typically ask a person who has been arrested to remove most of their clothing during booking for safety reasons, such as preventing someone from hiding additional weapons or using a piece of clothing to harm himself or another person. In sum, Taylor has not shown that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.
We affirm.
/s/ Peter D. O'Connell
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
/s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens