People v. Shenault, 2014 IL App (2d) 130211

Defendant Helen Shenault was charged with aggravated battery (count I) and two counts of resisting/obstructing a peace officer (counts II and III); she was acquitted of count I and convicted on counts II and III.
Officer Matthew Fichtel, a school resource officer, stopped Shenault for obstructing traffic after she picked up her son at school; an initial on-scene dispute ensued.
After Fichtel directed Shenault not to move and walked to his squad car, Shenault drove away; Fichtel followed, stopped her, told her she was under arrest, and ordered her to exit the vehicle.
The officer testified Shenault refused multiple times, pulled her arm away, kicked him in the chest, and he subsequently forced her out and arrested her.
Defense witnesses (including Shenault and an eyewitness, Kelly Rodriguez) were prevented by the trial court from testifying about statements by Fichtel that the defense argued would show Shenault reasonably believed he had told others they could leave.
On appeal Shenault argued (1) exclusion of eyewitness testimony was improper hearsay rulings requiring a new trial on count II, and (2) insufficient evidence supported conviction on count III (refusal to exit car after arrest order).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by sustaining hearsay objections to defense questions and excluding testimony that could corroborate Shenault’s claim she believed Fichtel told others they could leave (affecting count II)	Exclusion was proper; defendant failed to preserve error by making offers of proof	Exclusion prevented admission of corroborative evidence and warranted a new trial; alternatively, plain-error review applies because the evidence was closely balanced	No reversible error: defendant failed to make offers of proof, so appellate review cannot assess prejudice; plain-error review not available because first step (show reversible error) cannot be met without offer of proof
Whether evidence was insufficient to convict on count III for obstructing an officer by refusing to exit vehicle after arrest order	Evidence showed repeated refusal to exit, physical pulling away, and a kick — sufficient to obstruct and create officer-safety risk	Refusal and profanity alone do not constitute obstruction; any delay was negligible because officer immediately arrested her	Conviction affirmed: case law permits obstruction convictions for noncooperation that places officer safety at risk; jury could reasonably find Shenault’s repeated refusal and physical resistance obstructed the arrest

People v. Thompkins, 181 Ill. 2d 1 (1998) (offers of proof are ordinarily required to preserve evidentiary exclusion claims)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for insufficiency of the evidence review: whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
People v. Raby, 40 Ill. 2d 392 (1968) (definitions of ‘resist’ and ‘obstruct’ and need for a physical act that impedes an officer)
People v. Synnott, 349 Ill. App. 3d 223 (2004) (refusal to exit vehicle can constitute obstruction where it actually impedes officer performance and raises safety concerns)
People v. Baskerville, 2012 IL 111056 (2012) (section 31-1 is broad; obstruction may be committed by nonphysical means but liability requires the conduct actually impede an authorized act)