Arthur v. State
420 Md. 512
| Md. | 2011Background
- On Independence Day 2007, Corporal Stanley observed Arthur with others and saw Arthur pick up and toss a newspaper; a disturbance followed when Stanley approached and Arthur yelled obscenities.
- Stanley told Arthur to lower his voice and settle down; Arthur resisted and a struggle ensued with three officers taking him to the ground.
- Arthur alleges Stanley lacked probable cause for arrest and that he was unlawfully arrested; he claims he had the right to resist.
- The State presented Stanley’s testimony that Arthur’s loud verbal conduct prompted the arrest; Arthur presented witnesses contradicting force used.
- At trial, the court refused Arthur’s request to instruct the jury on the right to resist an unlawful arrest; the jury convicted on both counts.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed; this Court reversed, holding the trial court erred by not instructing on the right to resist an unlawful arrest and remanded for a new trial on both counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to sustain convictions | Arthur argues the State failed to prove a lawful arrest and valid order | State contends evidence showed reasonable grounds for arrest and order | Not addressed; sufficiency not reviewed due to preservation issue. |
| Whether the trial court should have instructed on the right to resist unlawful arrest | Arthur contends the jury should be instructed on resisting unlawful arrest | State argues pattern instruction covers the law and issue was not generated by evidence | Yes; the court erred, requiring a new trial on both counts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Starr v. State, 405 Md. 293 (2008) (preservation and particularity requirements for motions for judgment of acquittal)
- Polk v. State, 378 Md. 1 (2003) (disturbing the peace; scope of lawful orders and preservation concerns)
- Martin v. State, 329 Md. 351 (1993) (some evidence standard for instructing on defenses)
- Haley v. State, 398 Md. 106 (2007) (probable cause vs. reasonable suspicion distinction)
- Dishman v. State, 352 Md. 279 (1998) (standard for evaluating defense instructions)