Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v JOSHUA ASTON ROCHMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED January 29, 2008

No. 276244 St. Clair Circuit Court LC No. 06-002654-FH

Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Donofrio and Servitto, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right his jury trial conviction of assaulting, resisting, or obstructing a police officer who defendant knew or had reason to know was performing his duties, MCL 750.81d(1). Because when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of assaulting, battering, resisting, obstructing, and opposing a person in performance of his or her duty, we affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). Defendant argues on appeal that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction. He asserts both that his alleged acts of resistance constitute defensive actions that did not rise to the level of culpability contemplated by MCL 750.81d, and that refusal to cooperate or follow direct commands from officers is not prohibited by the statute. Reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of evidence presented at trial requires that we review the evidence de novo "in a light most favorable to the prosecutor to determine whether any trier of fact could find that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt." People v Robinson, 475 Mich 1, 5; 715 NW2d 44 (2006). Therefore, all conflicts of evidence are to be resolved in favor of the prosecution. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 515; 489 NW2d 748 (1992), amended 441 Mich 1201 (1992). And, "issue[s] of credibility [are left] for the jury to decide." People v Milstead, 250 Mich App 391, 404; 648 NW2d 648 (2002).

-1-


To convict defendant under Michigan's recently enacted resisting statute, MCL 750.81d,1 the prosecution was required to produce sufficient evidence to prove that: defendant (1) either (a) assaulted, (b) battered, (c) resisted, (d) obstructed, or (e) opposed (2) a person

Download PEOPLE OF MI V JOSHUA ASHTON ROCHMAN.pdf

Michigan Law