Opinion
SC: 164227 COA: 354667
01-12-2024
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brandi Marie HULL, Defendant-Appellant.
Tuscola CC: 19-015018-FH
Order
On December 6, 2023, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal the February 1, 2022 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the application is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Cavanagh, J. (dissenting).
In this case, a police body cam video is worth a thousand words. This video evidence captured the incident at issue and clearly shows that defendant Brandi Hull did not engage in any "threatened or actual physical interference with" Kingston Police Chief Albert Pearsall’s attempt to execute a warrant for her arrest. People ? Vasquez, 465 Mich. 83, 100 n 11, 631 N.W.2d 711 (2001) (emphasis added); see also People ? Morris, 314 Mich App 399, 408-411, 886 N.W.2d 910 (2016). The video shows that Chief Pearsall grabbed Brandi’s arm but that Brandi did not physically resist when he did so. Moreover, after Chief Pearsall let go of Brandi’s arm, her husband—Anthony Hull—grabbed her and pushed her into their home and away from Chief Pearsall; Brandi herself literally took no physical action in the exchange. That Brandi was angry and questioned the validity of the arrest warrant is insufficient to support a conviction under MCL 750.81d(1) for resisting or obstructing a police officer. As our Court of Appeals has recognized, "[MCL 750.81d(1)] is not facially overbroad because state actors cannot under this statute arrest and convict persons for only utilizing constitutionally protected words in opposition to the actions of, for example, a police officer." Morris, 314 Mich App at 411, 886 N.W.2d 910. Accordingly, I would vacate defendant’s conviction on the ground of insufficient evidence and remand to the trial court to enter a judgment of acquittal. See People v Mehall, 454 Mich. 1, 5, 557 N.W.2d 110 (1997).
On the evening in question, there was a second encounter with the police that apparently was not captured on video. However, Brandi was only charged with resisting or obstructing Chief Pearsall, and the prosecutor conceded during oral argument in this Court that the only conduct forming the basis of the charge against Brandi was the encounter that was caught on video.
Anthony Hull was also convicted of resisting or obstructing a police officer, and the Court heard oral argument on his application for leave to appeal together with Brandi’s application. People v Hull, 510 Mich 503, 990 N.W.2d 826 (2022). I concur in the Court’s denial order in Anthony's case because, unlike with Brandi, a jury could have reasonably concluded from the video evidence that Anthony engaged in actual or threatened physical interference with Chief Pearsall. However, in a future case I would be open to exploring whether the lawfulness of an officer’s actions is implicit in the statutory element that an officer be "performing his or her duties" such that the prosecution is required to show that a defendant "knows or has reason to know" that an officer was acting lawfully to sustain a conviction for resisting or obstructing a police officer. MCL 750.81d(1); see also People ? Moreno, 491 Mich. 38, 55-56 & n 53, 814 N.W.2d 624(2012).
Bolden, J., joins the statement of Cavanagh, J.