Donny Joe Curry v. State
06-14-00139-CR
| Tex. App. | Mar 16, 2015Background
- On Aug. 26, 2013, Officer Samantha Manrique stopped Donny Joe Curry for traffic violations (broken taillight, homemade plate). Curry claimed to be a "sovereign citizen" and refused to fully identify himself.
- Manrique called for backup; Lieutenant Mike Pehl and Sergeant Steve Scott arrived and identified themselves as peace officers.
- Pehl asked Curry to step out; Curry reached into a briefcase, Pehl drew his firearm, then holstered it and attempted to pull Curry from the vehicle by the arm.
- Curry resisted: he pulled his hands away, locked an arm on the steering wheel, and continued to flail and scream after being tased twice. Officers ultimately removed and handcuffed him.
- Curry was charged with and convicted of Class A misdemeanor resisting arrest; the State appeals/defends the conviction on sufficiency grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support resisting arrest conviction | State: Evidence shows Curry intentionally used force to obstruct a known peace officer attempting arrest | Curry: Resistance was brief / taser effects, not intentional obstruction; insufficient force/duration | Court: Evidence sufficient; actions (pulling away, locking arm, flailing) meet statutory resisting standard |
| Whether force must be directed at officer | State: Force need not be aimed at officer; opposing force (pulling away) suffices under Pumphrey | Curry: Implied that conduct too brief or not directed at officer to constitute resisting | Court: Agrees with Pumphrey: force "against" officer includes force exerted in opposition though away from officer |
| Intent to obstruct arrest | State: Circumstances (refusal to ID, prior conduct, pulling away, continued resistance before/after taser) support an inference of intent | Curry: Argues lack of clear notice of arrest and that taser caused the hold, negating intent | Court: Intent is a fact question; jury could reasonably infer Curry’s conscious objective to resist |
| Relevance of duration of resistance | State: Duration irrelevant; conduct controls | Curry: Emphasizes brief encounter as insufficient | Court: Duration not dispositive; conduct (multiple resistive acts) sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 323 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (standard of appellate sufficiency review)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (Jackson standard for sufficiency: view evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- Montgomery v. State, 369 S.W.3d 188 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (appellate role in sufficiency review; jury as factfinder)
- Pumphrey v. State, 245 S.W.3d 85 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008) (holding that pulling away or force away from officer can constitute resisting)
- Hemphill v. State, 505 S.W.2d 560 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974) (intent is a question of fact for the trier of fact)
- Dobbs v. State, 434 S.W.3d 166 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (contrast: where conduct was insufficient to prove resisting under facts involving self-harm threat)