Sufficiency of the evidence; Assaulting, resisting, or obstructing a police officer; MCL 750.81d; People v Quinn; “Obstruct”; MCL 750.81d(7)(a); “Assault” & “battery”; People v Morris; Judicial misconduct; A trial court’s authority to control the proceedings; Whether a trial judge has pierced the veil of impartiality; People v Stevens

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s convictions of two counts of assaulting, resisting, or obstructing a police officer, and that the trial court’s conduct did not pierce the veil of impartiality. His convictions arose out of an incident that occurred as deputies executed a search warrant and attempted to take his DNA sample as part of a separate investigation into a CSC case from 2006. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the crime. “From the testimony presented, there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that defendant assaulted, resisted, obstructed, or opposed [two deputies], particularly given that the prosecution does not have to prove physical violence to prove resistance or obstruction; they can be established by the defendant’s words or actions.” In addition, the prosecution proved that he “knew or had reason to know the person he assaulted, resisted, obstructed, or opposed was a police officer performing his or her duties.” The court further found that “he did not establish that the warrant was actually invalid.” The court also rejected defendant’s claim that the trial court pierced the veil of impartiality by the comments it made during his self-representation. “The only inappropriate judicial conduct consists of a few sarcastic, offhand comments by the judge, which appear to have been born out of frustration with defendant’s inability to focus on the present case and which do not appear to have affected defendant’s substantial rights, given the testimony at trial. Defendant thus falls short of meeting his burden in showing the trial court pierced the veil of impartiality.” Affirmed.