Com. v. Hall, D.
Com. v. Hall, D. No. 895 MDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Aug 16, 2017Background
- Plainclothes detectives in an unmarked car heard excessively loud music from a parked Dodge; Detective Simmons observed Curtis (co-defendant) driving and returned to issue a noise citation.
- Curtis moved into a fenced yard; when Simmons approached to identify him, Curtis became noncompliant and a physical struggle with detectives ensued.
- Donell Hall (appellant) emerged from the residence, ignored orders to step back, approached aggressively, and allegedly shoved Detective Simmons while detectives were restraining Curtis.
- When detectives told Donell he would be arrested for interfering and ordered him to put his hands behind his back, he grabbed Detective Heffner’s wrists, shoved him, and resisted being handcuffed.
- Backup arrived; a probation officer deployed a Taser (drive stun) to Donell’s leg, after which detectives secured handcuffs. Donell was convicted by a jury of one count of resisting arrest and sentenced to 24 months’ probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: whether evidence showed appellant created substantial risk of injury or required substantial force to overcome resistance | Commonwealth: testimony showed appellant approached aggressively, shoved and physically resisted, forcing officers to use a Taser and multiple officers to subdue him | Hall: argued Commonwealth failed to prove he created substantial risk or that substantial force was required | Affirmed: evidence sufficient—appellant’s actions justified use of substantial force to overcome resistance |
| Lawfulness of underlying arrest (probable cause) | Commonwealth: officers had probable cause to arrest for obstruction based on appellant’s interference with citation/arrest of Curtis | Hall: argued lack of lawful underlying arrest undermines resisting-arrest charge | Affirmed: courts found probable cause existed to arrest for obstructing administration of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Reese, 156 A.3d 1250 (Pa. Super. 2017) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Commonwealth v. Miller, 475 A.2d 145 (Pa. Super. 1984) (resisting arrest includes conduct creating substantial risk of injury or requiring substantial force)
- Commonwealth v. Lyons, 555 A.2d 920 (Pa. Super. 1989) (substantial force required where multiple officers needed to subdue defendant)
- Commonwealth v. Hock, 728 A.2d 943 (Pa. 1999) (resisting arrest requires underlying lawful arrest with probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Thompson, 985 A.2d 928 (Pa. 2009) (definition and standard for probable cause)
- Commonwealth v. Rainey, 426 A.2d 1148 (Pa. Super. 1981) (distinguishable minor-scuffle precedent relied on by defendant)