State v. Greenlee
2021 Ohio 455
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- On Aug. 16, 2019, Kettering officers went to serve an arrest warrant on Kiel T. Greenlee at his apartment complex pool.
- Officers in uniform approached; Greenlee, wearing swim trunks, began running when identified and was chased by Officer Brian Robinson.
- After about a minute Greenlee stopped; Robinson repeatedly ordered him to the ground and, when Greenlee did not comply, used an arm-bar take-down to place him on the ground and then announced the arrest.
- Greenlee did not actively fight once taken down but had run from officers and failed to obey multiple commands to stop and to get on the ground.
- A jury convicted Greenlee of resisting arrest (R.C. 2921.33) and obstructing official business (R.C. 2921.31); the trial court overruled his Crim.R. 29 motion and sentenced him to 60 days jail (30 suspended).
- On appeal Greenlee argued insufficient evidence for both convictions; the Second District affirmed, finding the evidence sufficient to support each charge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for resisting arrest (R.C. 2921.33) | Greenlee’s running and refusal to comply with commands recklessly resisted and delayed a lawful arrest. | Evidence insufficient — did not use force or actively resist once taken to the ground. | Affirmed. Running from officers and refusal to obey repeated orders to stop/get on ground could be reckless conduct delaying seizure and thus support resisting conviction. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for obstructing official business (R.C. 2921.31) | The flight and refusal to heed orders were purposeful acts intended to prevent, obstruct, or delay officers and actually impeded their duties. | Mere refusal or failure to respond is not obstruction; evidence insufficient to show purpose to obstruct. | Affirmed. The totality of conduct (running, ignoring commands) permitted an inference of intent to delay/impede, satisfying obstruction elements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jenks v. Ohio, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (sets Ohio standard for sufficiency review)
- Darrah v. Ohio, 64 Ohio St.2d 22 (defines elements of an arrest)
- Williams v. Ohio, 84 Ohio App.3d 129 (avoiding apprehension can constitute resisting arrest)
- Wellman v. Ohio, 173 Ohio App.3d 494 (intent inferred from manner and circumstances of acts)
- Lyons v. Xenia, 417 F.3d 565 (totality of conduct may establish obstruction when pattern shows resistance)