499 S.W.3d 378
Mo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Jackie L. Dickerson was charged with first‑degree assault (class B), armed criminal action (unclassified), and resisting arrest (class D); jury acquitted on the first two counts and convicted on resisting arrest.
- Victim Kenneth Snider testified Dickerson struck him, displayed and fired a rifle at him multiple times while Snider was running on a road.
- Sheriff Huffman and other officers went to Dickerson’s home, conducted a recorded, initially consensual interview in Dickerson’s yard about the shooting.
- During the encounter officers asked Dickerson to put his hands behind his back; Dickerson resisted, officers engaged physically, and Dickerson attempted to get his dog to attack the officers.
- Huffman never explicitly said “you are under arrest”; the court considered whether the request to put hands behind the back, and the ensuing physical restraint, sufficed to put a reasonable person on notice of an arrest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dickerson reasonably should have known he was being placed under arrest when an officer told him to put his hands behind his back | A reasonable person would know an arrest or detention was occurring when told to put hands behind their back, supporting resisting‑arrest conviction | Dickerson contends a reasonable person would not/should not have known he was under arrest at that point (officers had said they were just talking) | Court affirmed: although earlier statements might not have made an arrest clear, once officers physically attempted to restrain him and the confrontation escalated, a reasonable person would know an arrest was in progress and his resistance supported conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Botts, 151 S.W.3d 372 (Mo. Ct. App.) (standard for sufficiency of evidence review)
- State v. Grim, 854 S.W.2d 403 (Mo. 1993) (limits on disregarding contrary inferences)
- State v. Whalen, 49 S.W.3d 181 (Mo. 2001) (prohibition on supplying missing evidence or speculative inferences)
- State v. Bateman, 318 S.W.3d 681 (Mo. 2010) (rational trier of fact standard)
- State v. Chamberlin, 872 S.W.2d 615 (Mo. Ct. App.) (officer need not use explicit words to effect an arrest)
- State v. St. George, 215 S.W.3d 341 (Mo. Ct. App.) (resisting arrest requires officer attempting to restrain or control and defendant’s knowledge of arrest in progress)