26 Cal. App. 5th 71
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- On Jan. 19, 2016, Santa Cruz officers attempted to cite a group member; Andrew Williams stood between Officer Brouillette and the cited person, ignored repeated orders to sit, and kept his hand in his coat pocket.
- Officers attempted to handcuff Williams, took him to the ground, used escalating force (pressure point, punches, knee to face), restrained him with shackles and a wrap, and transported him to the hospital before jail.
- Williams was charged with violating Penal Code § 148(a)(1) (willfully resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer lawfully performing duties). Jury was instructed on lawful performance and unanimity of acts. Defense argued officers used excessive force, making their actions unlawful.
- During deliberations the jury asked whether excessive force used subsequent to a § 148(a)(1) violation “invalidates” that violation; the trial court answered “NO.” The jury convicted Williams.
- The appellate division reversed (2–1), holding the trial court’s answer was erroneous; the case was transferred to the Court of Appeal, which affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Williams) | Defendant's Argument (Prosecution/State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an officer’s use of excessive force after a completed § 148(a)(1) violation invalidates the earlier violation | Any use of excessive force during the evolving encounter renders the officer’s actions unlawful and thus negates the § 148 violation | If the officer was lawfully performing duties at the time of the defendant’s obstructing/resisting act, subsequent excessive force does not negate that completed violation | The court held: subsequent excessive force does not invalidate a prior completed § 148(a)(1) violation when the officer was lawful at the time of that act |
| Whether telling the jury that ‘‘stepping in front of Brouillette while he was writing a citation’’ could constitute § 148(a)(1) was erroneous | Standing between officer and cited person merely asserted rights and did not actually obstruct preparation of the citation, so the theory was legally invalid | The State: standing in between and repeatedly refusing orders distracted and delayed the officer, supporting a lawful § 148 theory | The court held: no error — a reasonable jury could find Williams willfully delayed/obstructed by stepping between the officer and the person being cited and ignoring commands |
Key Cases Cited
- Yount v. City of Sacramento, 43 Cal.4th 885 (Cal. 2008) (discusses when subsequent excessive force affects the validity of a § 148-based conviction and Heck-related limitations)
- People v. White, 101 Cal.App.3d 161 (Ct. App. 1980) (instructional error where jury not told excessive force renders arrest unlawful)
- People v. Olguin, 119 Cal.App.3d 39 (Ct. App. 1981) (failure to instruct that excessive force places officer outside lawful performance was prejudicial)
- In re Manuel G., 16 Cal.4th 805 (Cal. 1997) (lawfulness of officer conduct is essential element of § 148 offense)
- People v. Wetzel, 11 Cal.3d 104 (Cal. 1974) (refusal to consent to warrantless search held passive assertion of right, not § 148 obstruction)
- Sanford v. Motts, 258 F.3d 1117 (9th Cir. 2001) (excessive force used after arrest-related interference does not destroy lawfulness of arrest for Heck analysis)
- Smith v. City of Hemet, 394 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005) (conviction for pre-arrest conduct not necessarily invalidated by subsequent excessive force)
- Hooper v. County of San Diego, 629 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (excessive force during later phase of encounter does not negate lawfulness of earlier arrest attempt)