People of Michigan v. Scott Alan Lockmiller
328358
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 15, 2016Background
- Defendant was on probation with a requirement to complete substance-abuse treatment; he was expelled from the Salvation Army program and failed to complete the program.
- Defendant (or his father) called probation officer Robert Greenwood about next steps; Greenwood told him to report to the probation department or jail and prepared an arrest warrant.
- The next day defendant reported to the probation department; Greenwood escorted him to his office while two other probation officers (Whittaker and Rechsteiner) waited outside as a "show of force."
- A confrontation occurred in the hallway when defendant attempted to leave after being told to stow a phone; officers fell to the ground while trying to restrain him and defendant resisted handcuffing. Greenwood felt defendant’s hand on Greenwood’s concealed weapon during the struggle.
- Defendant was charged with three counts of assaulting or obstructing a probation officer (MCL 750.479); a jury convicted on all counts and the trial court sentenced him as a third habitual offender to three consecutive prison terms. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions but remanded to reconcile an inconsistency between the oral sentencing statement and the written judgment about whether the three counts should run concurrently with each other or consecutively.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to show defendant knew the persons were probation officers performing duties | Prosecution: defendant had prior contact with Greenwood (call) and Whittaker (orientation), met at the probation office for a probation-related meeting, so he knew they were probation officers performing duties | Defendant: lacked knowledge or reason to know that Greenwood, Whittaker, and Rechsteiner were probation officers performing duties at the time of the altercation | Court: Evidence sufficient as to Greenwood, Whittaker, and Rechsteiner; jury could find defendant knew they were probation officers performing duties. |
| Whether defendant’s actions were intentional (not accidental) | Prosecution: resistance, attempts to push through officers, failure to comply with commands, and hand on officer’s weapon show intent to obstruct/assault | Defendant: argued lack of evidence for knowledge element (did not directly contest intent on appeal) | Court: Implicitly upheld jury’s finding of intent by affirming convictions. |
| Whether convictions should be reversed for insufficiency of evidence | Prosecution: record supports convictions under MCL 750.479 | Defendant: insufficient evidence on knowledge element requires reversal | Court: Affirmed convictions; applied standard of viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution. |
| Whether judgment of sentence matched sentencing oral pronouncement | Prosecution: sentence intended consecutively to prior sentence but the trial court orally said counts run concurrently with each other | Defendant: objected that written judgment said counts were consecutive to each other and to prior sentence | Court: Remanded for the trial court to determine if amended judgment needed to reflect its sentencing decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harverson v. People, 291 Mich. App. 171 (2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Wolfe v. People, 440 Mich. 508 (1992) (view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution; credibility for jury)
- McRunels v. People, 237 Mich. App. 168 (1999) (weight of evidence and credibility are for the jury)
- Hampton v. People, 407 Mich. 354 (1979) (existence of some evidence does not necessarily equal sufficient evidence)
- Allen v. People, 201 Mich. App. 98 (1993) (circumstantial evidence and inferences can prove elements of a crime)
- Gleisner v. People, 115 Mich. App. 196 (1982) (elements of assaulting or obstructing a probation officer under MCL 750.479)