Friday, May 30, 2014
In People v Quinn, Docket No. 309600 (May 29, 2014), Judge Wilder, writing the unanimous opinion, also held that the Michigan Supreme Court's holding in People v Moreno, 491 Mich 38; 814 NW2d 624 (2012), finding that a defendant had the right to resist an unlawful arrest in his own home, was retroactive as applied to Quinn's case.
An Emmet Township Public Safety Officer testified that she was on routine patrol at 1:00am in an area that had recently suffered sever storm damage and was without power. She testified about thefts occurring in the area during the blackout and to seeing a car parked in a lot near a salon. She approached to investigate why a car was parked in the lot at that hour. As she approached, she determined that the car was parked, not at the salon, but in the lot of an adjacent apartment complex. She saw the defendant and his adult son in a dark carport. She did not know what they were doing, but she wanted to find out and told the two "to come over here." Someone responded, "No, you come over here." She said the two then started walking quickly toward the building.
She radioed for assistance and then ran to the area where the defendant and his son had gone into the building through a rear door. She went in and saw the defendant and his son on a landing, told them to give her identification and they both refused. When she tried to arrest the son, Quinn went into the apartment. The officer forced her way to the door and held it open with her foot. She pepper sprayed both men and, when backup arrived, they forced their way into the apartment and arrested both.
Quinn testified consistently with what the officer had said, except that he denied having contact with the officer outside the apartment door, and that he was trying to call 911 when the other officers came in and forcefully arrested him. He stated he did not know it was the police outside of the apartment because it was dark. He was concerned for their own safety and was trying to call 911, but was having difficulty seeing because of the pepper spray.
Quinn filed a motion to suppress based on the unlawful actions of the officer in coming into the apartment without consent or probable cause. The Supreme Court, however, had yet to decide Moreno and the trial court denied the motion based on the current state of the law, People v Ventura, 262 Mich App 370; 686 NW2d 748 (2004), that said a defendant had no right to resist an unlawful arrest. In Moreno, the Court overruled Ventura and held that a defendant did have that right. The Court, however, did not specifically hold that the lawfulness of the officer's actions was an element of resisting and obstructing a police officer that the prosecution had to prove in its case in chief.
The Quinn Court held that it is, and because the trial court had failed to instruct the jury on that element (previously required at common law), Quinn was entitled to a new trial with a properly instructed jury. Though Moreno had yet to be decided as of the date of Quinn's trial, the Court held that Moreno's application was retroactive, at least as it related to Quinn, who had filed a motion to suppress in the trial court and had appealed that issue to the Court of Appeals.
Quinn's appeal was handled by Michael Skinner of Lake Orion, Michigan.