Christopher M. Thornton v. StateChristopher M. Thornton v. State
NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk’s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed. http://www.gaappeals.us/rules
Christopher Thornton appeals from his convictions of felony obstruction of an officer,
On appeal from a criminal conviction, the standard for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court does not reweigh evidence or resolve conflicts in testimony; instead, evidence is reviewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, with deference to the jury’s assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence.
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Hayes v. State, 292 Ga. 506 (739 SE2d 313) (2013). So viewed, the record shows that on January 10, 2013, a Georgia Department of Natural Resources conservation ranger1 stopped at a convenience store in LaFayette, Georgia to fill up his work truck with gas after completing work-required random drug-testing in Rome, Georgia. His work truck was a gray F-150 pickup, four wheel drive, marked on the side with the words “Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resource Division” in large block lettering, along with an “outline of the State of Georgia” and a seal. While it had blue lights “in the tail lights and inside the cab,” they were concealed, rather than being located on the top of the vehicle. The ranger testified that he was wearing a long-sleeve polo shirt with an embroidered badge stating “State of Georgia,” green pants, black boots, and a clip-on badge on his duty belt. His duty belt included pepper spray, a baton, handcuffs, and a firearm.
After Thornton’s last comment, the ranger “instructed” him to remain outside the car, explaining that he did so “from a personal safety standpoint” because he “did not know if he had a knife or gun in the vehicle.” The ranger then walked to his truck to retrieve his radio to call the City of LaFayette to ask them to talk to Thornton about the ordinance violation. When he turned to look, Thornton “had gotten in the car,” and as the ranger approached Thornton’s car, “the music appeared to get louder.” The ranger said “please step out of the car, you are under arrest for obstruction, and [Thornton’s] comment was, I ain’t going back to jail, fuck you, man.” The ranger told him again to step out of the vehicle and provide a driver’s license or identification. As Thornton flipped his wallet “open, back and forth,” the ranger saw something that looked like an identification and reached inside the car to grab for the wallet. The car window was rolled up approximately four inches. As he grabbed the edge of the wallet and placed his arm inside the car up to his shoulder, the ranger realized that the car was moving across the parking lot. He “let go of the wallet” and tried to pull up the emergency brake, while continually telling Thornton “to stop the vehicle, stop the vehicle, stop the vehicle.” As they were “getting pretty close” (approximately “10 or maybe 15 feet” away from a truck), the ranger snatched his arm out of the vehicle. The ranger testified that he was dragged approximately 12-28 feet and “this whole thing took place in probably five or six seconds.” After the ranger freed himself, Thornton drove off. He was arrested shortly thereafter by City of LaFayette police officers. The State submitted into evidence photographs showing the bruising of the underside of the ranger’s right arm.
1. Thornton contends that insufficient evidence supports his obstruction convictions because the State failed to prove that the ranger was in the lawful discharge of his official duties. In support of this argument, he contends that the ranger’s conduct fell outside the scope of his duties with the Department of Natural Resources, as outlined in
Officers of the Georgia State Patrol and any other officer of this state2 or of any county or municipality thereof having authority to arrest for a criminal offense of the grade of misdemeanor shall have authority to prefer charges and bring offenders to trial under this article.3
fact could also find from the evidence that the ranger’s order for Thornton to stop the vehicle was also within the lawful discharge of his official duties. See In the Interest of E. G., 286 Ga. App. 137, 139 (2) (648 SE2d 699) (2007) (“flight, or attempted flight, after a command to halt constitutes obstruction of an officer within the meaning of
2. In his remaining enumeration of error, Thornton contends that the trial court erred by failing to charge the jury on a conservation ranger’s duties under
Judgment affirmed. Barnes, P. J., and Mercier, J., concur.
Notes
to conduct trials, receive pleas of guilty, and impose sentence, in the manner required by law, upon defendants violating any and all criminal laws of this state relating to traffic upon the public roads, streets, and highways of this state where the penalty for the offense does not exceed that of the grade of misdemeanor.