978 N.E.2d 1220
Mass. App. Ct.2012Background
- Trooper stop for seat belt violation; defendant provided false name with an arrest warrant outstanding on the true person.
- Active warrant matched defendant’s description; trooper continued inquiry to verify identity.
- Defendant attempted to flee and struck Trooper Driscoll and Trooper Gladu.
- Troopers subdued the defendant after a struggle and mace was sprayed.
- Defendant convicted on two assault-and-battery on a police officer counts and one resisting-arrest count.
- Issue on appeal: whether resisting arrest conviction valid when initial encounter was a threshold inquiry but escalated after assaultive conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether resisting arrest requires arrest to be in progress at the moment of resistance. | Commonwealth: arrest was being effected once assault occurred. | Portee: arrest not yet underway during threshold inquiry. | Conviction affirmed; arrest understood by defendant once assault occurred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Latimore, 378 Mass. 671 (Mass. 1979) (standard for evidentiary review in sufficiency contexts in Massachusetts)
- Commonwealth v. Grandison, 433 Mass. 135 (Mass. 2001) (arrest definition and threshold inquiry limits)
- Commonwealth v. Cook, 419 Mass. 192 (Mass. 1994) (arrest occurs with intent to arrest and understanding by detainee)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 55 Mass. App. Ct. 569 (Mass. App. Ct. 2002) (threshold inquiry not arrested; distinction from arrest is discussed)
- Commonwealth v. Lender, 66 Mass. App. Ct. 303 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006) (threshold inquiry can evolve into arrest; factors considered)
- Commonwealth v. Grant, 71 Mass. App. Ct. 205 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008) (objective standard for whether defendant understood arrest)
- Commonwealth v. Powell, 459 Mass. 572 (Mass. 2011) (words used to describe arrest are not necessary; understanding matters)