Sufficiency of the evidence for attempted resisting & obstructing a police officer; MCL 750.81d; People v Quinn; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object; Lay witness opinion testimony; MRE 701; MRE 704; Prejudice; Prosecutorial misconduct

Holding that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s convictions of attempted resisting and obstructing an officer, that there was no prosecutorial misconduct, and that he was not entitled to reversal based on ineffective assistance of counsel, the court affirmed his convictions. As to whether there was sufficient evidence he knew the officers “were performing their lawful duties or making an arrest” when the incident occurred, defendant “clearly had several prior contacts with the police and was, by his own admission aware that he was precluded from contacting” his ex-wife. He offered “no reason why he refused to give the police his name other than that he was at his workplace and wanted to know what was going on. He testified that he was on bond for various things at the time of the incident and ‘I just wanted to know what was going on because there was so much going through my mind.’ He also testified that he was getting irritated and ‘they were trying to do their job and I was trying to do my job and we weren’t helping each other at all.’” Thus, the court concluded that he was aware they “were performing their lawful duty. Moreover, the jury was properly instructed of the requirement for conviction that defendant knew or had reason to know the police were performing their lawful duties at the time of the resistance/obstruction.” As to his intent, he refused to respond to their questions about “his identify and refused to turn around and put his hands behind his back. According to both officers,” he pulled his hands away as they tried to handcuff him. According to one of the officers, “defendant had to be essentially forced to keep walking out to the patrol car because he wanted to walk a different route, and had to be forcibly placed in the patrol car when he kept insisting he be allowed to turn around. One does not accidently refuse to provide one’s name, refuse to walk, or refuse to get into a patrol car. And defendant was told, prior to being placed in handcuffs, that he was being placed under arrest. Thus, any actions thereafter of pulling his hands away from handcuffs, refusing to walk the way the officer was taking him, refusing to get into the car, and refusing to comply with officer instructions were knowing and intentional incidents of resisting or obstructing.”