State v. Ajak
543 S.W.3d 43
| Mo. | 2018Background
- On Feb. 15, 2015, police responded to a domestic disturbance at Daniel Ajak’s home after a witness reported a knife; Ajak placed the knife in the sink prior to officers’ arrival.
- Officers ordered Ajak to stop; they handcuffed him inside the kitchen, seated him at the table, and told him he was under arrest while other officers interviewed witnesses.
- While handcuffed and escorted by officers from the kitchen to the patrol car, Ajak jerked and pulled against officers, knocked an officer’s name tag off, yelled, and spat on an officer before being put into the patrol vehicle.
- The State charged Ajak with three counts of domestic assault and one count of resisting arrest; the jury acquitted on two assaults, the third was dismissed, and convicted Ajak of resisting arrest.
- Ajak appealed, arguing (1) his resistance occurred after his arrest was already effected and (2) the jury instruction improperly allowed conviction for mere "physical interference."
- The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the resisting-arrest conviction, holding Ajak’s arrest was effected while he was handcuffed and under officers’ control in the kitchen, so subsequent conduct could not satisfy resisting-arrest elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arrest was "effected" before Ajak’s conduct to support resisting arrest under §575.150 | State: arrest not complete until placed in patrol vehicle; resistance during walk could prevent effecting arrest | Ajak: arrest was already effected when handcuffed, told he was under arrest, and controlled in kitchen | Arrest was effected in the kitchen when Ajak was handcuffed and under officers’ control; conviction reversed |
| Proper definition of "arrest" for §575.150: whether §544.180 definition governs | State: §544.180 need not control resisting-arrest statute; court may apply other definitions | Ajak: §544.180 definition of arrest (actual restraint or submission) applies | Court: §544.180 and Missouri case law govern; "arrest" occurs when officer takes control of movements |
| Whether evidence supported jury instruction allowing conviction for "physical interference" without specific intent to prevent effecting arrest | State: instruction permissibly captured conduct interfering with officers | Ajak: conviction requires purpose to prevent effecting arrest; cannot apply if arrest already effected | Because arrest already effected, evidence did not support resisting-arrest submission; instruction not supportable on these facts |
| Proper charge if resistance occurs after arrest is effected | State: resisting-arrest statute covers interference with an arrest in progress | Ajak: post-effectuation conduct is custody/escape issue, not resisting arrest | Court: Post-effectuation acts are matters of escape/attempted escape from custody, not resisting arrest under §575.150 |
Key Cases Cited
- Smither v. Director of Revenue, 136 S.W.3d 797 (Mo. banc 2004) (uses §544.180 definition to find arrest where officer controlled movements even without physical restraint)
- State v. Sampson, 408 S.W.2d 84 (Mo. 1966) (arrest occurs when officer takes control of defendant’s movements)
- State v. Stokes, 387 S.W.2d 518 (Mo. 1965) (arrest effected when officer took control and directed defendant’s movements)
- State v. Jackson, 645 S.W.2d 725 (Mo. App. 1982) (arrest completed where officer placed defendant under arrest and maintained control during medical x‑ray)
- State v. Ondo, 231 S.W.3d 314 (Mo. App. 2007) (distinguishes situations where handcuffing did not yet effect arrest when defendant could still abscond)
- State v. Belton, 108 S.W.3d 171 (Mo. App. 2003) (handcuffs alone do not always show arrest if defendant’s ability to absent himself was not impaired)