Sufficiency of the evidence; Resisting & obstructing a police officer; MCL 750.81d(1); Probable cause; Great weight of the evidence; Jury instructions; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Personal protection order (PPO)

The court held that there was sufficient evidence defendant “did not have a right to resist or obstruct the deputies.” Also, it concluded “the evidence did not preponderate so heavily against the verdict that it would be a miscarriage of justice to allow the verdict to stand.” Finally, it determined that “defense counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to object to the instructions or by failing to request certain instructions.” At the heart of the case was a PPO verbally served on defendant. Defendant’s sole focus was “on the element requiring the deputies to have acted lawfully in placing defendant under arrest, with defendant arguing that probable cause to arrest him was lacking.” The court concluded there was sufficient evidence that he “failed to immediately comply with the PPO, providing, upon objective examination, reasonable cause for an immediate arrest, even if the deputies might have thought differently.” The evidence as to “communications at the window showed that defendant knew he could not stay at the house under the PPO and knew that he could be arrested if he did so, yet he initially ignored the deputies.” The court also concluded “that there was sufficient evidence to additionally establish reasonable cause to arrest defendant on the basis of his subsequent actions at the front doorway of the house.” Thus, there was sufficient evidence “the deputies made lawful commands, were making a lawful arrest, i.e., an arrest based on reasonable cause, and were otherwise performing lawful acts.” Affirmed.