Motion for directed verdict; Sufficiency of the evidence; Assaulting or obstructing a police officer; Privilege from service of process; MCL 750.479(1)(a); Distinguishing People v Moreno; Jury instruction; Waived issue

The court concluded that because “a factual question existed on which reasonable minds could differ, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for directed verdict.” Additionally, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to sustain defendant’s conviction of assaulting or obstructing a police officer. Defendant contended Chief A’s (who was at the courthouse attempting “to serve defendant papers for an alleged violation of a personal protection order”) actions were not lawful because A “violated MCL 600.1835(1) by serving defendant as he was leaving a court proceeding.” Defendant cited “no authority to support failure to comply with MCL 600.1835(1) per se constitutes a criminal or unlawful act, entitling him to behave in a combative manner to avoid service of process.” The facts in this case were unlike Moreno, “where the defendant resisted an unlawful arrest after law enforcement unlawfully entered his home.” Although defendant argued “the prosecution failed to present evidence [A] was even aware of MCL 600.1835(1), defendant does not cite authority to support one must be aware of a specific civil statute to be acting lawfully.” His argument was not dispositive. Affirmed.