People v. Moreno
491 Mich. 38
Mich.2012Background
- Defendant struggled with two Holland officers who entered his home without a warrant.
- Officers sought to identify occupants and secure the residence pending a warrant.
- Defendant refused entry and a physical confrontation ensued, resulting in arrest.
- Defendant was charged under MCL 750.81d(1) and (2) for resisting/obstructing a police officer.
- Trial court and Court of Appeals relied on Ventura to hold there was no need to prove the officers’ lawfulness.
- The Supreme Court overruled Ventura, remanding to quash based on unlawful entry by the officers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 750.81d abrogates the common-law right to resist unlawful police conduct | Ventura requires abrogation | No abrogation without clear language | No abrogation; Legislature did not speak in no uncertain terms |
| Whether the legislative history supports abrogation of the right | History supports abrogation | History does not show clear abrogation | Legislative history does not clearly abrogate the right |
| Whether officers’ unlawfulness affects defendant’s charges under 750.81d | Unlawfulness irrelevant to resisting | Lawfulness required for resisting/obstructing | Prosecution must prove officers’ actions were lawful for resisting/obstructing under 750.81d |
Key Cases Cited
- Ventura v. People, 262 Mich. App. 370 (2004) (held abrogation of common-law right to resist unlawful arrest)
- People v Dupree, 486 Mich. 693 (2010) (affirmative defense context; common law interacts with statutes)
- People v Krum, 374 Mich. 356 (1965) (right to resist illegal arrest under prior statute)
- People v Clements, 68 Mich. 655 (1888) (lawfulness of arrest as context for resisting)
- Wold Architects & Engineers v Strat, 474 Mich. 223 (2006) (abrogation of common law requires clear intent)
- Dawe v Dr Reuven Bar-Levav & Assoc, PC, 485 Mich. 20 (2010) (absent explicit abrogation, common law may apply)
- Reed v Breton, 475 Mich. 531 (2006) (absence of explicit abrogation language does not prove no abrogation)
- Hoerstman Gen Contracting, Inc v Hahn, 474 Mich. 66 (2006) (statutory abrogation rules; need for clear terms)
- People v Krum, 374 Mich. 356 (1965) (common-law right to resist illegal arrest before 2002 amendments)