Sufficiency of the evidence for an assaulting, resisting, or obstructing an officer conviction; People v Vandenberg; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to request a jury instruction as to the officers’ legal authority to act

Holding that the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s assaulting, resisting, or obstructing an officer conviction, and rejecting her ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the court affirmed. Her arguments concerned the first and third elements of the offense. The court found that the “record, viewed as a whole,” did not support her version of events. The officer (R) “testified that defendant, despite being told multiple times to stay back, made repeated contact with him in trying to go up the stairs to reach the boyfriend, and that defendant attempted to grab at the boyfriend as he was being led down the stairs. [R] then blocked [her] from grabbing the boyfriend, and defendant shoved [R] in response. This version of events” was supported by another officer’s testimony and was “consistent with the body camera recordings that were admitted into evidence. While the boyfriend testified that he did not see defendant shove [R], his testimony on that point was admittedly uncertain and the verdict reflects that the jury did not find it credible—an assessment to which” the court had to defer. Defendant did “not meaningfully acknowledge the evidence presented at trial that she repeatedly pushed up against and then shoved [R], and she does not explain—nor do we see—why that evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, would be insufficient to satisfy the first element of the charged offense.” Further, she did not show “the evidence was insufficient to prove that [R] was performing his duties lawfully.” The court noted that she “called law enforcement to remove her boyfriend from the house that they were both in at the time.” Trial evidence showed that she “was upset and yelling, was accusing the boyfriend of attempting to take things that were hers, and was trying to grab at [him] as he was leaving. Under the circumstances, keeping the peace and ensuring the safety of all parties at the scene fell within the officers’ lawful caretaking duties,” and the court found that “the evidence amply supported the conclusion that [R] was acting consistently with those duties in seeking to prevent defendant from escalating the situation into a physical confrontation with the boyfriend.” It also determined she did not show that her trial counsel was ineffective for failing “to request an additional jury instruction on the applicable law regarding the lawfulness of her arrest.”