Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to request a special jury instruction on unlawful use of force; People v Carroll (I & II); Trial strategy; People v Yeager; Prejudice; Sufficiency of the evidence for an assaulting, resisting, or obstructing a police officer conviction; Lawfulness of the officers’ use of force; People v Quinn; People v Jones; Graham v Connor

The court rejected defendant’s claim that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request a special jury instruction on unlawful use of force and held that there was sufficient evidence that the officers acted lawfully. Thus, it affirmed his assaulting, resisting, or obstructing an officer convictions. The jury instructions were inadequate because while they addressed the lawfulness element, they “did not address the legal standards applicable to determining whether the officers’ actions were lawful in this case.” But defendant’s argument did not concern “defense counsel’s failure to request the full” instruction on the applicable legal standards for “determining the lawfulness of the traffic stop or arrest.” Rather, he asserted “defense counsel should have requested a special jury instruction regarding defendant’s right to proportionately resist the officers’ allegedly unlawful use of force. Although defendant attempts to frame this as a matter affecting the lawfulness of the officers’ conduct under MCL 750.81d(1), he does not dispute that [they] had grounds to conduct a valid traffic stop, nor does he challenge the legality of the initial arrest for reckless driving or the lawfulness of [their] commands throughout the encounter.” The court noted that the defense theory at trial was “that defendant did not know he was under arrest or that the officers were acting lawfully, and he resisted out of fear and confusion.” The court found that defense “counsel could have reasonably decided not to focus on the legality of the officers’ conduct or subsequent use of force, especially considering defendant plainly resisted [one officer’s] lawful commands to stay in his car and attempt to handcuff defendant, which escalated the encounter.” It further concluded that, on this record, an instruction on “unlawful use of force would not have been warranted.” And defendant failed to show prejudice. The court also found that while his alleged underlying crime “may not have been severe, per se, the . . . evidence supported a finding that defendant was actively resisting a lawful arrest and posed an immediate threat to the officers through his physical resistance, proximity to [an officer’s] duty belt, and repeated refusal to comply with the officers’ commands.” It held that, “viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the officers’ use of force against [him] was lawful.”