State v. Buzan, 1 CA-CR 21-0174

A laundromat employee called police about a suspicious van; Officer S., in uniform clearly marked “police,” found Andrew Buzan naked inside the van.
Officer S. told Buzan to dress and exit; Buzan dressed, briefly exited, then reentered the van and sat in the driver’s seat.
Officer S. told Buzan he was not free to leave (though initially said Buzan was not under arrest); Buzan ignored repeated commands and rummaged the center console.
Officer S. pulled Buzan from the van; a physical struggle followed on the sidewalk and ground, with testimony that Buzan flailed, kicked, and attempted to grab the officer’s face; officers subdued and handcuffed him.
The State charged Buzan with resisting arrest, aggravated assault, and criminal damage; jury convicted for resisting arrest and acquitted on assault; court acquitted on criminal damage.
Buzan moved for acquittal arguing insufficient evidence and that the court erred by not answering a juror’s question with “no” when asked whether resisting arrest means merely failing to comply; the superior court denied relief and this Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for resisting arrest	Evidence (officer ID, restriction on leaving, Buzan’s noncompliance and physical struggle) supports conviction	Evidence insufficient because officer’s statements were inconsistent about whether Buzan was under arrest	Affirmed — substantial evidence supports conviction: officer acted under color of authority, freedom of movement was curtailed, and Buzan used/threatened physical force to prevent arrest
Whether the trial court erred in responding to juror’s question about meaning of resisting arrest	Written instructions adequately state the law; referral back to instructions was proper	Juror confused resisting arrest with mere failure to comply; court should have told juror “no”	Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion by referring jury to instructions; instructions required use/threat of force or substantial risk of injury and were adequate

State v. Barker, 227 Ariz. 89 (definition and elements of resisting arrest)
State v. Sorkhabi, 202 Ariz. 450 (physical struggle with officer can constitute resisting arrest)
State v. Winegar, 147 Ariz. 440 (whether arrest occurred is determined by objective facts)
State v. Ramirez, 178 Ariz. 116 (trial court may refer jury back to written instructions when adequate)
State v. Zaragoza, 221 Ariz. 49 (adequacy standard for jury instructions)
Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U.S. 607 (court need not answer juror question if written instructions are adequate)
State v. Bearup, 221 Ariz. 163 (definition of substantial evidence standard)