Opinion
Case No. 20060711-CA.
Filed February 1, 2007. (Not For Official Publication).
Appeal from Third District, Salt Lake Department, 041907003 The Honorable Stephen L. Henriod.
Maria Joyce Jacobs, Salt Lake City, Appellant Pro Se.
David E. Yocom and Gregory N. Ferbrache, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before Judges GREENWOOD, BILLINGS, and ORME.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Maria Joyce Jacobs appeals her conviction of interfering with an arresting officer, a class B misdemeanor. We affirm.
Jacobs first asserts that the trial court erred in giving jury instructions regarding the charge of interfering with an arresting officer. This issue is raised for the first time on appeal. "As a general rule, claims not raised before the trial court may not be raised on appeal." State v. Holgate, 2000 UT 74, ¶ 11, 10 P.3d 346. The preservation rule applies to every claim unless a defendant demonstrates that "exceptional circumstances" or "plain error" exist. See id. Jacobs has not argued that either of these exceptions apply. She asserts, without argument, that she received ineffective assistance of counsel. Absent reasoned argument, her ineffective assistance claim is inadequately briefed, and we will not address it further. See Utah R. App. P. 24; State v. Marquez, 2002 UT App 127, ¶ 6, 54 P.3d 637 (noting that reviewing courts will not address arguments that are not adequately briefed).
Jacobs also asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction. A defendant has a heavy burden when challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a jury verdict. Jacobs "'must first marshal all the evidence supporting the jury's verdict and then demonstrate how this evidence, even viewed in the most favorable light, is insufficient to support the verdict.'" State v. Shepard, 1999 UT App 305, ¶ 25, 989 P.2d 503 (quoting State v. Strain, 885 P.2d 810, 819 (Utah Ct.App. 1994)). Jacobs fails to carry her burden. She presents none of the evidence in support of the verdict and merely states her position with little factual support. Accordingly, we do not consider this argument further. See id.
The core legal issue Jacobs attempts to assert appears to be that because she was acquitted on three other charges, her arrest was unlawful and therefore not within the scope of Utah Code section 76-8-305, prohibiting interfering with an arresting officer.See Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-305 (2003). However, her resistance to the officer itself provided an independent basis for arrest for interfering with an officer because Jacobs necessarily committed the offense in the officer's presence. See State v. Trane, 2002 UT 97, ¶ 31, 57 P.3d 105. Furthermore, the lawfulness of the underlying arrest is not relevant under this statute. See American Fork City v. Pena-Flores, 2002 UT 131, ¶ 13, 63 P.3d 67. "[T]he reach of the statute is not contingent on the lawfulness of the underlying arrest or detention, but rather [on] . . . the 'officer . . . acting within the scope of his or her authority and the detention or arrest . . . [having] the indicia of being lawful.'"Id. (citation omitted). Thus, Jacobs's subsequent acquittal on other charges does not negate the officer's authority at the time of her arrest.
Accordingly, Jacobs's conviction is affirmed.
Pamela T. Greenwood, Associate Presiding Judge, Judith M. Billings, Judge, Gregory K. Orme, Judge.