People v. Quinn
305 Mich. App. 484
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- At ~1:00 a.m., Officer Debra Novar approached a truck parked by an apartment complex after noticing two men (defendant Arthur J. Quinn and his son) in a dark carport in an area with recent storm damage and thefts.
- The men walked quickly into the apartment building; Novar pursued, confronted them on a landing, asked for identification, and followed when they entered an apartment.
- Novar tried to detain Brian; pepper spray was deployed inside the apartment, Novar wedged her foot in the door until backup arrived, and officers then arrested Arthur Quinn after a physical struggle.
- Quinn testified he believed someone was threatening them, was inside the apartment attempting to call 9-1-1, did not know Novar was an officer, and pushed the door to keep out an unknown assailant.
- Pretrial suppression motion arguing Fourth Amendment violations was denied based on People v Ventura. After conviction for resisting/obstructing (MCL 750.81d(1)), the Michigan Supreme Court decided People v Moreno overruling Ventura; Quinn sought relief based on Moreno.
- The trial court denied relief (ruled Moreno nonretroactive); the Court of Appeals held Moreno is retroactive here, refused directed verdict, but reversed and remanded for a new trial because the jury was not instructed that lawfulness of the officer’s actions is an element of resisting/obstructing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Prosecution) | Defendant's Argument (Quinn) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Moreno applies retroactively | Moreno should not apply retroactively; prior decisions (Ventura) governed at trial | Moreno announces reinstated common-law rule; retroactivity should be applied here because defendant preserved the issue | Moreno applies retroactively here (limited retroactivity) because Quinn preserved the issue at trial and on appeal |
| Whether the prosecution had to prove lawfulness of the officer’s actions as an element | Lawfulness need not have been separately proved at trial under pre-Moreno precedent | Under Moreno, lawfulness of the officer’s actions is an element; failure to instruct jury deprived defendant of a properly instructed jury | Lawfulness of the officers’ actions is an element under Moreno; jury was not instructed on it — new trial required |
| Whether a directed verdict was warranted | Evidence permitted a reasonable juror to find Novar had reasonable suspicion and acted lawfully, so conviction should stand | Arrest/detention was unlawful; defendant entitled to acquittal or new trial | Directed verdict denied (reasonable juror could find Novar had reasonable articulable suspicion); but new trial granted due to defective jury instructions |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Moreno, 491 Mich 38; 814 NW2d 624 (Mich. 2012) (reinstated common-law right to resist unlawful arrest; lawfulness of officers’ actions required)
- People v Ventura, 262 Mich App 370; 686 NW2d 748 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (prior precedent holding lawfulness not treated as element)
- People v Pasha, 466 Mich 378; 645 NW2d 275 (Mich. 2002) (limited retroactivity applied when prior rule was widely relied upon)
- People v Dalton, 155 Mich App 591; 400 NW2d 689 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986) (precedent treating lawfulness of arrest as element)
- People v Jenkins, 472 Mich 26; 691 NW2d 759 (Mich. 2005) (standard for reasonable, articulable suspicion for investigatory stops)
- People v Corr, 287 Mich App 499; 788 NW2d 860 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (elements of resisting/obstructing under MCL 750.81d)
- People v Mills, 450 Mich 61; 537 NW2d 909 (Mich. 1995) (defendant’s right to a properly instructed jury)