Waiver of counsel; MCR 6.005(E); Sufficiency of evidence; Resisting or obstructing a police officer; MCL 750.81d(1); Intent; Distinguishing People v Moreno

Concluding that (1) the “circuit court substantially complied with MCR 6.005(E), and did not plainly err by accepting defendant’s waiver of counsel” and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support his resisting or obstructing a police officer conviction, the court affirmed. The case arose when he attempted to commit suicide at his home. Fearing that he “was experiencing an overdose, officers broke down the bathroom door. During the struggle that ensued, defendant headbutted, kicked, and spit at the officers. [He] also, on multiple occasions, tried to grab one of the officer’s guns.” Defendant first argued “that there was insufficient evidence that he intended to resist or obstruct the police officers.” His insufficiency argument mischaracterized “the circuit court’s findings of fact as having equated his suicide attempt to the offense of resisting or obstructing.” But the circuit court found that his “act of barricading himself in his bathroom constituted the physical act of resistance. Furthermore, the circuit court’s findings as to whether defendant was truly suffering from a cluster headache at the time of his arrest are irrelevant, because ‘the duration of the resistance or the mental state of defendant at the time is of no import, as resistance can occur in even the briefest moments, and the statute does not require that defendant be found to be free of any mitigating motivation.’” The only requirement was that he “was taking the requisite physical action to prevent a police officer from performing his lawful duties.” The court found that the “circuit court made such a finding, and this finding is supported by the record.” Defendant, relying on Moreno, also argued “that the officer’s ‘excessive force’ constituted unlawful conduct that he had a right to resist.” This reliance was misplaced. “Moreno permits individuals to resist an officer’s illegal conduct.” The court noted that the “circuit court determined that the officers acted lawfully and were legally present under the emergency aid exception. It further found there was ‘nothing about the way that the officers interacted [with defendant] overall’ that was unlawful, and reasoned that their actions were reactionary and ‘in line with what [defendant] made them do.’ The Court’s reasoning is supported by the testimony of one of the arresting officers that, during the arrest, defendant was hitting, kicking, and attempting to spit blood at him. The circuit court found this officer’s testimony to be credible, and we defer to the circuit court’s ‘superior ability to judge the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before it.’” The record supported “the circuit court’s determination that the officers’ actions were lawful, meaning defendant was not entitled to resist their commands.”