Kal Robert Molinet v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 65 Va. App. 572

Appellant Kal Robert Molinet was tried by jury and convicted of one misdemeanor count of obstruction of justice under Va. Code § 18.2-460(A); he was acquitted of public intoxication.
VCU Sergeant Joel Abernathy and Officer Krista Barton were investigating a reported fight early June 8, 2014; Abernathy’s role was to maintain a secure perimeter and provide backup to keep the scene safe.
Molinet approached the group being interviewed, engaged the women, and was told repeatedly by Abernathy to step back to the curb; he initially took minimal steps but refused to comply fully.
According to Abernathy and backup Officer Chad Perrigan, Molinet stepped toward Abernathy in an aggressive manner, made threatening gestures, and repeatedly shouted profanities (e.g., “Shut the fuck up!”), drawing the officers’ attention.
Abernathy arrested Molinet for obstruction; Molinet testified he was trying to protect the women and denied aggressive movement or cursing before arrest; the jury convicted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Molinet’s conduct constituted obstruction of a law-enforcement officer performing duties	Commonwealth: Molinet’s refusal to follow orders, aggressive approach, and profanity prevented the officer from maintaining scene safety and performing duties	Molinet: At most failed to cooperate or made the task harder; did not obstruct — analogous to mere noncooperation in Ruckman/Atkins	Court: Evidence sufficient — a rational juror could find Molinet’s actions obstructed Abernathy’s duties
Whether Molinet acted with intent to obstruct	Commonwealth: His stated goal to prevent the women from being arrested plus his actions showed intent to interfere	Molinet: Claimed he acted to protect the women, lacked intent to obstruct	Court: Jury could infer intent from Molinet’s goal and conduct; sufficient evidence of intent

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (established the standard for sufficiency review: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
Ruckman v. Commonwealth, 28 Va. App. 428 (obstruction does not include mere failure to cooperate or conduct that only makes the officer’s task more difficult)
Atkins v. Commonwealth, 54 Va. App. 340 (flight or hiding alone insufficient to prove obstruction)
Jordan v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 639 (obstruction requires acts indicating intent to prevent officer from performing duties; need not be a technical assault)
Riner v. Commonwealth, 268 Va. 296 (reiterating standard to view evidence in light most favorable to prevailing party on sufficiency review)