Sufficiency of the evidence; Assaulting, resisting, or obstructing a police officer; MCL 750.81d(1); Knowledge; Distinguishing People v Prude; Lawfulness of the officers’ conduct

Holding that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s assaulting, resisting, or obstructing a police officer conviction under MCL 750.81d(1), the court affirmed. The court concluded that “taken together, the facts and circumstances presented at trial gave defendant ample reason to know that Deputy [H] and Sergeant [B] were police officers performing their official duties at the time of the incident.” The court noted that both “officers arrived in marked patrol vehicles and wore full police uniforms. The headlights from [H’s] patrol vehicle illuminated the driveway, and he stood in front of those lights while interacting with defendant.” Although neither “officer expressly identified himself as law enforcement, [H] repeatedly stated that he was responding to a call about a potential assault and warned that he would use a taser if defendant did not show his hands—clear indications that he was acting as a police officer. During the struggle, both officers stated that defendant was under arrest, and [B] can be heard communicating with dispatch over his radio.” Moreover, the “officers testified that they had interacted with defendant on multiple prior occasions in their official capacities.” Defendant also contended “that the officers acted unlawfully when they detained him, relying on Prude.” The court held that argument mischaracterized the record. There was “no support in the record for the claim that the officers sought to detain defendant before he made threatening gestures and hostile statements. Nor were defendant’s convictions predicated on resisting an attempted detention or arrest, as was the case in Prude.” The relevant inquiry was “not whether the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant, but whether their commands were lawful in light of the circumstances. The evidence was sufficient to establish that the officers’ commands, ‘when viewed under a lens sufficiently deferential to that conduct,’” were lawful. The court concluded that given his “behavior—including his refusal to comply, his aggressive posture, and his ambiguous and potentially threatening comments—the officers reasonably feared for their safety and were justified in ordering him to show his hands. Because those commands were lawful, defendant’s noncompliance supports his convictions under MCL 750.81d(1).”