Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v ANTHONY JO LAMBERT, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED March 20, 2012

No. 299138 Kalkaska Circuit Court LC No. 10-003188-FH

Before: STEPHENS, P.J., and CAVANAGH and SAAD, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals his convictions of three counts of resisting, obstructing, or assaulting a police officer, MCL 750.81d(1), and one count of malicious destruction of police property, MCL 750.377b. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. I. FACTS Defendant's girlfriend testified that, during an argument, defendant became physically violent with her. She further testified that defendant assaulted her in the kitchen and cut himself when he grabbed a knife away from her. In response to a 911 call, two state troopers arrived at the home and met defendant outside. Defendant invited the troopers into the house and, meanwhile, a Kalkaska County Sheriff's Department deputy spoke to defendant's girlfriend outside. While the troopers were inside the house, defendant placed his hand on the shoulder of one of the troopers and the trooper told him not to do so. The troopers testified that, in response, defendant became "irate" and said they could not to tell him what to do in his house. The troopers then attempted to place defendant under arrest, and he resisted both inside the house and after the troopers took him outside to their vehicle. Evidence showed that defendant cracked the vehicle's windshield and damaged its GPS system, radar, and computer. Defendant admitted that he damaged the car, but he characterized his conduct at trial as a "temper tantrum." II. CLAIM OF SELF-DEFENSE Defendant argues that the trial judge should have instructed the jury on self-defense. We find no abuse of discretion because the evidence did not support a self-defense instruction and it would have contradicted defendant's own theory of the case. We review issues of law arising from jury instructions de novo, but a trial court's decision whether to give an instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v Gillis, 474 Mich 105, 113; 712 NW2d 419 (2006). -1-

The troopers testified that defendant yelled and attempted to pull his hands away as soon as they informed him that he was under arrest. This behavior constitutes both "the use or threatened use of physical interference or force" and "a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command." MCL 750.81d(7)(a). Further, this evidence establishes that defendant was resisting arrest before he alleges that the troopers used any excessive force. MCL 780.972; People v Dupree, 486 Mich 693, 707; 788 NW2d 399 (2010). Moreover, a self-defense instruction would have been illogical because defendant took the position at trial that he did not resist the troopers. Because defendant denied that he ever took action to repel the troopers, there was no basis to instruct the jury that he should be excused for physically defending himself. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to give a self-defense instruction. III. ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL Defendant claims that his counsel provided him ineffective assistance at trial. The right to counsel guaranteed by the United States and Michigan Constitutions, US Const, Am VI; Const 1963, art 1,

Download PEOPLE OF MI V ANTHONY JO LAMBERT.pdf

Michigan Law