Sufficiency of the evidence for convictions of resisting & obstructing a police officer (MCL 750.81d(1)) & disturbing the peace (MCL 750.170); People v Weinberg; Lawfulness of an officer’s actions; People v Moreno; The emergency-aid & community-caretaking exceptions to the warrant requirement; People v Hill; People v Lemons; Jury instructions; M Crim JI 13.1 & 13.5; M Crim JI 40.1; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to object to instructions that were not erroneous

The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s convictions of resisting and obstructing a police officer and disturbing the peace. Further, it found no error in the jury instructions given and thus, it rejected her claim defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object to them or “request ‘better’ instructions.” Defendant asserted there was insufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that (1) she “knew or had reason to know that” the actions of the officer (L) she admittedly kicked “were lawful, and (2) that [L’s] actions were lawful.” But the court noted “MCL 750.81d(1) does not require the prosecution to establish that defendant knew that the officers’ conduct was lawful.” The court found that in light of “testimony that the officers arrived in squad cars, were in uniform, identified themselves as police officers, and warned defendant that they would arrest her if her behavior continued, there was sufficient evidence to prove that [she] knew or had reason to know that [they] were ‘performing [their] duties.’” As to the lawfulness of their actions, the court held that viewing “the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could find that the officers were acting under the emergency-aid exception and thus were performing a lawful act at the time” defendant kicked L and resisted arrest. The court also concluded the jury could find her was guilty of disturbing the peace. “The jury could reasonably infer that defendant’s screaming, cussing, and belligerent behavior outside the apartment late at night interrupted the peace and quiet of others who were either inside their apartments or outside.” Next, the court noted that defense counsel stipulated to the instructions given. Further, the “trial court instructed the jury consistent with M Crim JI 13.1, which addresses the elements of the offense of resisting and obstructing a police officer” under MCL 750.81d. While defendant asserted “the instructions should have included an explanation advising the jury how to determine whether the officers’ actions were lawful,” the trial court did so, consistent “with the parameters of M Crim JI 13.5[.]” In addition, while it “slightly deviated from” M Crim JI 40.1’s language, “‘an imperfect instruction is not grounds for setting aside a conviction if the instruction fairly presented the issues to be tried and adequately protected the defendant’s rights.’” Affirmed.