Case Title: STATE v THORNTON

Citation: 

Docket Number: 84-498

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1985-10-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 84-498 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1985 STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs- DENNIS D. THORNTON, Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . APPEAL FROM: District C o u r t o f t h e E l e v e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of F l a t h e a d , The Honorable Michael Keedy, Judge p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL OF RECORD: F o r A p p e l l a n t : Donald L. S h a f f e r , ~ i b b y , Montana F o r Respondent: Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , Helena, Montana Ted 0. Lympus, County A t t o r n e y , K a l i s p e l l , Montana Michael P r e z e a u , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , K a l i s p e l l , Montana Submitted on b r i e f s : J u l y 11, 1985 Decided: October 3 1 , 1985 F i l e d : OCT 3 i I985 * # C l e r k ?qr. J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. This i s an appeal from a judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Flathead County, d e c l a r i n g Dennis D . Thornton g u i l t y o f o b s t r u c t i n g a peace o f f i c e r o r o t h e r p u b l i c s e r v a n t , aggravated a s s a u l t , and escape, i n v i o l a t i o n o f $ 45-7-302, MCA, $ 45-5-202, MCA, and § 45-7-306, MCA, r e s p e c t i v e l y . W e a f f i r m . O n August 31, 1983, i n t h e a f t e r n o o n , A r t Sarnow, an enforcement o f f i c e r with t h e Montana Department o f Highways, observed a t r a c t o r - t r a i l e r haul-ing a s k i d d e r and c a t e r p i l l a r which appeared t o be overweight and overwidth. O f f i c e r Sarnow gave p u r s u i t . H e a c t i v a t e d t h e p u r s u i t l i g h t s on t h e t o p o f h i s p a t r o l c a r , b u t t h e t r u c k d i d n o t s t o p . O f f i c e r Sarnow continued t o pursue, and a t one p o i n t drew up along s i d e t h e t r u c k and motioned t o t h e d r i v e r t o p u l l over. F i n a l l y , a f t e r t h r e e m i l e s o f p u r s u i t , t h e t r u c k p u l l e d o f f t h e highway o n t o a p r i v a t e driveway. O f f i c e r Sarnow approached t h e d r i v e r o f t h e t r u c k , Gary Wood, a s he emerged from t h e v e h i c l e and asked him t o produce v a r i o u s p e r m i t s and records. I n t h e meantime, O f f i c e r Sarnow observed t h e passenger i n t h e t r u c k , defendant Dennis Thorn- t o n , who w e n t t o t h e r e a r o f t h e t r a i l e r and began unchaining t h e s k i d d e r with t h e e v i d e n t i n t e n t i o n o f removing it from t h e t r a i l e r . Since O f f i c e r Sarnow intended t o weigh t h e t r a i l e r with h i s p o r t a b l e s c a l e s t o determine i f it was overweight, he went t o t h e r e a r o f t h e t r a i l e r t o ask Thorn- ton n o t t o unload it a t t h i s t i m e . When h i s r e q u e s t was ignored, O f f i c e r Sarnow repeated t h e r e q u e s t . Thornton a g a i n ignored O f f i c e r Sarnow's r e q u e s t , and continued t o unchain t h e skidder. A f t e r t a l k i n g f u r t h e r w i t h M r . Wood and c o n t i n u i n g t o observe Thornton unchain t h e s k i d d e r and prepare t o remove it, O f f i c e r Sarnow r e t u r n e d t o Thornton and a d v i s e d him t h a t h e was under a r r e s t f o r r e f u s i n g t o a l l o w t h e weighing o f t h e t r a i l e r . A t t h i s t i m e , Thornton l i f t e d a c h a i n h i n d e r above h i s head and t h r e a t e n e d t o bash O f f i c e r Sarnow's head-in i f he d i d n o t g e t away. O f f i c e r Sarnow r e t r e a t e d from Thornton i n f e a r o f h i s own s a f e t y , and c a l l e d f o r p o l i c e a s s i s t a n c e on h i s r a d i o . A t t h i s p o i n t , O f f i c e r Sarnow r e p e a t e d t o Thornton t h a t he was under a r r e s t and should n o t remove t h e s k i d d e r . Thornton c o n t i n u e d t o unload t h e s k i d d e r and c a t e r p i l l a r and a f t e r d o i n g s o , prepared t o l e a v e a l o n e i n a pick-up. O f f i c e r Sarnow a g a i n informed Thornton t h a t h e was under a r r e s t and should n o t l e a v e . Thornton t h e n l e f t t h e s c e n e and was l a t e r apprehended. Thornton was s u b s e q u e n t l y found g u i l t y i n J u s t i c e Court on October 1 8 , 1983, o f t h e misdemeanor c h a r g e o f o b s t r u c t i n g a peace o f f i c e r o r o t h e r p u b l i c o f f i c i a l i n v i o l a t i o n o f § 45-7-302(1), M C A . Thornton t h e n appealed h i s c o n v i c t i o n t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court and t h e a p p e a l was c o n s o l i d a t e d w i t h t h e t w o f e l o n y c h a r g e s o f aqgravated a s s a u l t and e s c a p e i n v i o l a t i o n o f S 45-5-202(1) (c) , MCA, and 5 45-7-306(3) (b) (ii) , MCA, r e s p e c t i v e l y . A j u r y t r i a l commenced on March 19, 1984, and Thornton was found g u i l t y o f a l l t h r e e c h a r g e s . H e was sentenced t o a t o t a l o f f i v e y e a r s imprisonment w i t h two y e a r s suspended, and was g i v e n t w o $500 f i n e s . Defendant a p p e a l s h i s c o n v i c t i o n s . The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s a r e r a i s e d by t h i s a p p e a l : (1) Whether t h e d e f e n d a n t was e n t i t l e d t o an i n s t r u c - t i o n on r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t ? ( 2 ) Whether an e s c a p e from " o f f i c i a l d e t e n t i o n " a c t u - a l l y o c c u r r e d i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e a s r e q u i r e d by 5 45-7-306, MCA? (3) Whether t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n v i c t i o n on t h e t h r e e crimes charged c o n s t i t u t e s double jeopardy? The f i r s t i s s u e r a i s e d by defendant contends t h a k t h e t r i a l c o u r t committed r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r by n o t i n s t r u c t i n g t h e j u r y t h a t t h e o f f e n s e o f r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t was a l e s s o r i n - cluded o f f e n s e o f aggravated a s s a u l t . A s t h e defendant c o r r e c t l y p o i n t s o u t , it i s a b a s i c r u l e i n t h i s s t a t e t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s must cover every i s s u e o r t h e o r y having support i n t h e evidence. S t a t e v. Buckley (1976), 171 Mont. 238, 557 P.2d 283. The defendant a l s o c o r r e c t l y recognizes t h a t : . . . a defendant i s e n t i t l e d t o i n s t r u c - t i o n s on l e s s o r included o f f e n s e s i f any evidence e x i s t s i n t h e record which would permit t h e jury t o r a t i o n a l l y f i n d him g u i l t y o f a l e s s o r o f f e n s e a n d a c q u i t him o f a g r e a t e r . S t a t e v. Ostwald (1979), 180 Mont. 530, 538, 591 P.2d 646, 651. However, while t h e defendant c o r r e c t l y recognizes t h e law i n t h i s a r e a , he f a i l s t o apply it t o h i s own case. The f a c t s c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e defendant was given a l e s s o r included o f f e n s e i n s t r u c t i o n which follows t h e r a t i o n a l e set f o r t h i n Ostwald, quoted above. The t r i a l c o u r t record s t a t e s t h e following i n s t r u c t i o n was read and given t o t h e jury: A person commits t h e o f f e n s e o f aggravat- ed a s s a u l t , a felony, i f he purposely o r knowingly causes reasonable apprehension of s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y i n a n o t h e r by use o f a weapon. 1 1 f you do n o t f i n d t h a t t h e defendant purposely o r knowingly caused reasonable apprehension o f s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y i n another by use o f a weapon, b u t you do f i n d t h a t he purposely o r knowingly caused reasonable apprehension o f b o d i l y i n j u r y i n a n o t h e r , you may, n e v e r t h e l e s s , f i n d him g u i l t y o f t h e l e s s o r included o f f e n s e o f a s s a u l t , a misdemeanor. The record c l e a r l y shows t h a t defendant obtained an i n s t r u c t i o n on t h e l e s s e r included o f f e n s e of simple a s s a u l t , a misdemeanor. This i n s t r u c t i o n amply covered d e f e n d a n t ' s v e r s i o n of t h e e v e n t a s w e l l a s r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t could have. Under t h e f a c t s of t h i s c a s e , t h e r e was no m a t e r i a l d i f f e r - ence between t h e o f f e n s e s o f r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t and simple a s s a u l t . Consequently, if t h e jury had accepted d e f e n d a n t ' s v e r s i o n o f t h e e v e n t , it could have found him g u i l t y o f simple a s s a u l t and a c q u i t t e d him of aggravated a s s a u l t . Defendant was n o t , a s he argues, deprived o f h i s o p p o r t u n i t y t o have t h e jury c o n s i d e r h i s v e r s i o n o f t h e e v e n t , because t h e lesser included o f f e n s e i n s t r u c t i o n on simple a s s a u l t was s u f f i c i e n t f o r t h i s purpose. I n s h o r t , defendant s u f f e r e d no harm by t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r e f u s a l t o a c c e p t h i s last-minute proposed i n s t r u c t i o n on r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t . This Court f a i l s t o see how d e f e n d a n t ' s s i t u a t i o n d i f f e r s s u b s t a n t i a l l y from t h e r a t i o n a l e s e t f o r t h and endorsed by defendant i n Ostwald, quoted above. Defendant a l s o p r e s e n t s t h e c a s e o f S t a t e v. Gopher (Mont. 1 9 8 1 ) , 6 3 3 P.2d 1195, 38 St.Rep. 1521, a s a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t he was e n t i t l e d t o an i n s t r u c t i o n on t h e l e s s e r included o f f e n s e o f r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t . However, t h e danger adverted t o i n Gopher, t h a t t h e j u r y would b e l i e v e defendant g u i l t y o f some o f f e n s e and would c o n v i c t him o f t h e felony o f f e n s e because it had no o t h e r choice, was n o t p r e s e n t i n t h e i n s t a n t case. The jury i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e was i n s t r u c t e d on t h e lesser included o f f e n s e o f simple a s s a u l t . Consequently, t h e j u r y , had it believed d e f e n d a n t ' s v e r s i o n o f t h e e v e n t , could have found him g u i l t y o f simple a s s a u l t . The s i t u a t i o n p r e s e n t i n Gopher t h a t t h e jury could have been forced t o f i n d t h e defendant g u i l t y - - t h a t is, t h e jury may n o t have wanted t o l e t t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s a c t i o n s go unpunished s o they chose t o f i n d him g u i l t y o f aggravated a s s a u l t because t h e only a l t e r n a t i v e was acquittal--simply d o e s n o t e x i s t i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e . T h e r e f o r e , we h o l d t h e District C o u r t d i d n o t commit r e v e r s i b l e error b y r e f u s i n g d e f e n d a n t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n o n r e s i s t i n g a r r e s t . The second i s s u e r a i s e d b y d e f e n d a n t a s k s t h i s C o u r t t o c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r a n e s c a p e from " o f f i c i a l d e t e n t i o n " a c t u a l l y o c c u r r e d i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e . As n o t e d a b o v e , d e f e n d a n t was c h a r g e d and c o n v i c t e d w i t h t h e o f f e n s e o f e s c a p e , a f e l o n y , i n v i o l a t i o n o f S 45-7-306, MCA. D e f e n d a n t a s s e r t s t h a t h e was w r o n g l y c o n v i c t e d o f t h i s o f f e n s e b e c a u s e t h e S t a t e n e v e r p r o v i d e d a n y e v i d e n c e w h a t s o e v e r t h a t d e f e n d a n t e s c a p e d from " o f f i c i a l d e t e n t i o n " which i s a n e c e s s a r y e l e m e n t o f t h e c h a r g e o f e s c a p e . W e d i s a g r e e . S e c t i o n 45-7-306 ( 2 ) and ( 3 ) ( b ) (ii) , MCA, d e f i n e t h e o f f e n s e o f e s c a p e i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t a s f o l l o w s : "A p e r s o n s u b j e c t t o o f f i c i a l d e t e n t i o n commits t h e o f f e n s e o f e s c a p e i f h e knowingly o r p u r p o s e l y removes h i m s e l f from o f f i c i a l d e t e n t i o n . . . b y t h e u s e o r t h r e a t o f f o r c e . " S e c t i o n 45-7-306 (1) f u r t h e r d e f i n e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t t h a t t h e p h r a s e " o f f i c i a l d e t e n t i o n " means " d e t e n t i o n b y a p e a c e o f f i c e r p u r s u a n t t o a r r e s t . " I n l i g h t of t h e s e s t a t u t e s , t h i s C o u r t a s s e r t s , and b o t h p a r t i e s a g r e e , t h a t a v a l i d a r r e s t i s a n u n d e r l y i n g e l e m e n t o f " o f f i c i a l d e t e n t i o n " and a l s o , t h e r e - f o r e , i s a n u n d e r l y i n g e l e m e n t o f t h e o f f ~ n s e o f e s c a p e . C o n s e q u e n t l y , it becomes n e c e s s a r y t o examine t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e and t h e l a w o f Montana t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e d e f e n - d a n t was p l a c e d u n d e r a v a l i d a r r e s t . The p e r t i n e n t s t a t u t e i n Montana w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e method o f a v a l i d a r r e s t i s S 46-6-104, MCA. T h i s s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "An a r r e s t i s made by a n a c t u a l r e s t r a i n t of t h e p e r s o n t o be a r r e s t e d o r b y h i s s u b m i s s i o n t o t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e p e r s o n making t h e a r r e s t . " D e f e n d a n t a r g u e s b e c a u s e h e d i d n o t s u b m i t t o t h e c u s t o d y o f O f f i c e r Sarnow n o r was he p h y s i c a l l y r e s t r a i n e d by O f f i c e r Sarnow, a v a l i d a r r e s t n e v e r o c c u r r e d . Conversely, t h e S t a t e a r g u e s t h a t a p h y s i c a l r e s t r a i n t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t was n o t a neces- s a r y element o f a v a l i d a r r e s t . W e a g r e e w i t h t h e S t a t e . Montana h a s had v i r t u a l l y no r e p o r t e d c a s e s under i t s a r r e s t s t a t u t e ( S 46-6-104), b u t s i n c e it was i n l a r g e p a r t adopted from I l l i n o i s some o f t h e i r c a s e s a r e i n s t r u c t i v e . I n People v. Ussery (111.App. 1 9 7 4 ) , 321 N.E.2d 718, 720-721, an I l l i n o i s A p p e l l a t e c o u r t o u t l i n e d t h e e l e m e n t s o f a r r e s t : An a r r e s t i n v o l v e s t h r e e elements: ( I ) a u t h o r i t y t o a r r e s t ; (2) a s s e r t i o n o f t h a t a u t h o r i t y w i t h i n t e n t i o n t o a f f e c t an a r r e s t ; and ( 3 ) r e s t r a i n t o f t h e person a r r e s t e d . [ C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ] C l e a r l y , a p p l i e d t o t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e , t h e f i r s t two e l e m e n t s o f an a r r e s t a r e s a t i s f i e d . O f f i c e r Sarnow by s t a t u t e had a u t h o r i t y t o a r r e s t t h e d e f e n d a n t and h e obvious- l y a - s s e r t e d h i s a u t h o r i t y w i t h t h e i n t e n t i o n o f a r r e s t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t . The o n l y remaining q u e s t i o n i s whether t h e r e was r e s t r a i n t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t . I n r e s o l v i n g t h e q u e s t i o n o f r e s t r a i n t , t h e r e a r e s o m e , m o s t l y o l d e r , c a s e s which hold t h a t a n o r a l s t a t e m e n t o f a r r e s t w i t h o u t any p h y s i c a l t o u c h i n g i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t f o r a v a l i d a r r e s t . See 5 Am. Jur.2d A r r e s t §1; People v. Jackson (111.App. 1 9 6 8 ) , 240 N.E.2d 421. However, most modern c o u r t s a r e examining a l l c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g a n a r r e s t , i n which c a s e an o r a l s t a t e m e n t may b e s u f f i c i e n t . People v. M i l l e r (111,App. 1 9 8 0 ) , 412 N.E.2d 175; Bey v. S t a t e ( F l a . 1 9 7 8 ) , 355 So.2d 850; S t a t e v. White (Neb. 1 9 8 1 ) , 306 N.W.2d 906. The Maine Supreme Court r e c e n t l y r e f u s e d t o a p p l y a requirement o f p h y s i c a l t o u c h i n g f o r an a r r e s t : D e f e n d a n t ' s counsel concedes t h a t defen- d a n t would have been v a l i d l y a r r e s t e d i f Trooper G a l l a n t had a l s o merely p l a c e d h i s hand on d e f e n d a n t ' s arm o r s h o u l d e r . There i s no r e a s o n f o r making t h e v a l i d i - t y o f an a r r e s t i n t h e p r e s e n t c i r c u m s t a n c e s t u r n on such a n i n s i g n i f i c a n t f o r m a l i t y , r e m i n i s c e n t o f t h e medieval l i v e r y o f s e i s i n . S t a t e v. Donahoe ( M e . 1 9 8 0 ) , 420 A.2d 936, 938. T h e r e f o r e , t h e view t h a t a p h y s i c a l r e s t r a i n t i s a n e c e s s a r y element o f an a r r e s t i s l a r g e l y d i s c r e d i t e d i n r e c e n t c a s e s . W e a g r e e w i t h t h i s p o s i t i o n . Furthermore, w e a s s e r t t h a t t h e s t a n d a r d f o r an a r r e s t when t h e r e i s n o t a p h y s i c a l r e s t r a i n t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t i s whether a r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n , i n n o c e n t o f any crime, would have f e l t f r e e t o walk away under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s . Miller, 412 N.E.2d a t 179; United S t a t e s v. Johnson ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 8 0 ) , 626 F.2d 753; United S t a t e s v. O'Connor ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 8 1 ) , 658 F.2d 688. T h i s s t a n d a r d d r o p s any t e c h n i c a l r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a n a r r e s t and t h e c o n c e p t o f r e s t r a i n t , and i n s t e a d l o o k s upon a l l t h e f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f e a c h c a s e . W e a g r e e w i t h t h e S t a t e t h a t where t h e e n t i r e circum- s t a n c e s o f t h i s e n c o u n t e r a r e f a i r l y examined, it i s c l e a r t h a t any r e a s o n a b l e p e r s o n would have c o n s i d e r e d h i m s e l f under a r r e s t and n o t f r e e t o walk away. O f f i c e r Sarnow was wearing a law enforcement uniform w i t h a badge and had t h e obvious a u t h o r i t y t o a r r e s t t h e d e f e n d a n t ; O f f i c e r Sarnow a d v i s e d t h e d e f e n d a n t he was v i o l a t i n g t h e law; and O f f i c e r Sarnow r e p e a t e d l y t o l d t h e d e f e n d a n t h e was under a r r e s t and should n o t l e a v e t h e scene. Consequently, we hold t h e defen- d a n t was p r o p e r l y charged w i t h t h e o f f e n s e o f e s c a p e when h e , a f t e r b e i n g v a l i d l y a r r e s t e d , secured h i s r e l e a s e by t h r e a t of p h y s i c a l f o r c e o r v i o l e n c e . The t h i r d and f i n a l i s s u e r a i s e d by d e f e n d a n t a s k s t h i s Court t o c o n s i d e r whether t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n v i c t i o n on t h e t h r e e crimes charged c o n s t i t u t c ? ~ double jeopardy. Defen- d a n t ' s argument on t h i s i s s u e is s k e t c h y , b u t h e a p p e a r s t o b e a r g u i n g t h a t double jeopardy e x i s t e d on a l l t h r e e c h a r g e s because a l l t h r e e charges a r o s e o u t o f t h e same i n c i d e n t . Defendant a p p a r e n t l y f a i l s t o understand t h e concept of double jeopardy and t h e a p p l i c a b l e law i n t h i s a r e a . Defendant s argument r e l i e s upon t h e holding found i n Blockburger v. United S t a t ~ s (1932), 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306, 309, which s t a t e s : The a p p l i c a b l e r u l e i s t h a t where t h e same a c t o r t r a n s a c t i o n c o n s t i t u t e s a v i o l a t i o n o f two d i s t i n c t s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s , t h e test t o be a p p l i e d t o determine whether t h e r e a r e two o f f e n s e s o r only one i s whether each p r o v i s i o n r e q u i r e s proof o f a f a c t which t h e o t h e r does not. The so-called Blockburger r u l e has been adopted by s t a t u t e i n Montana a t S 46-11-502, MCA. The f i r s t s e n t e n c e o f S 46-11-502, MCA, s t a t e s : "When t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n may e s t a b l i s h t h e commission o f more than one o f f e n s e , a person charged with such conduct may be prosecuted f o r each such offense." The s t a t u t e goes on t o enumerate some exceptions t o t h i s statement. Defendant, however, h a s n o t i n d i c a t e d which exception h e relies on, b u t h i s argument appears t o c e n t e r around exception (1). This exception s t a t e s : " [Defendant] may n o t , however, b e convicted o f more than one o f f e n s e i f . . . one o f f e n s e i s included i n t h e o t h e r . " I n a series o f r e c e n t c a s e s t h i s Court has c l a r i f i e d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e Blockburger r u l e and S 46-11-502. To determine i f one o f f e n s e i s i n c l u d a b l e w i t h i n a n o t h e r , t h e a n a l y s i s looks t o t h e s t a t u t o r y elements, n o t t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n . S t a t e v. Ritchson (Mont. 1 9 8 1 ) , 630 P.2d 234, 38 St.Rep. 1015; S t a t e v. W e l l s (Mont. 1983), 658 P.2d 381, 40 St.Rep. 127. I f each o f f e n s e c o n t a i n s an element d i f f e r e n t than t h e o t h e r t h e r e i s no i n c l u s i o n , even though t h e r e may be a s u b s t a n t i a l o v e r l a p i n proof. S t a t e v. Madera (Mont. 1 9 8 3 ) , 670 P.2d 552, 558, 40 St.Rep. 1558, 1564, c i t i n g I a n n e l l i v. United S t a t e s (1975), 420 U.S. 770, 785, fn. 17, 95 S.Ct. 1284, 1294, fn. 17, 43 L.Ed. 6 1 6 , 627, fn. The c r i m i n a l o f f e n s e s involved i n t h i s c a s e a r e aggra- vated a s s a u l t , escape, and o b s t r u c t i n g a peace o f f i c e r . It can r e a d i l y be determined t h a t each o f t h e s e o f f e n s e s a r e s e p a r a t e . The e l e m e n t s o f agcjravated a s s a u l t a r e : (1) purposely o r knowingly, ( 2 ) cause, ( 3 ) reasonable apprehen- s i o n of s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y i n a n o t h e r , ( 4 ) by use o f a weapon. The elements o f escape a : (1) knowingly o r pur- posely, (2) removing himself from o f f i c i a l d e t e n t i o n , (3) by use o r t h r e a t o f f o r c e , p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e o r weapon, ( 4 ) a f t e r having been placed under a r r e s t by a peace o f f i c e r and being s u b j e c t t o o f f i c i a l d e t e n t i o n . Thus escape and aggra- vated a s s a u l t a r e r e a d i l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e : escape r e q u i r e s an a r r e s t and removal from o f f i c i a l d e t e n t i o n , n e i t h e r of which is r e q u i r e d f o r aggravated a s s a u l t ; aggravated a s s a u l t re- q u i r e s a reasonabl-e apprehension o f s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y , whereas escape r e q u i r e s only a use o r t h r e a t o f f o r c e , physi- c a l v i o l e n c e o r weapon. The misdemeanor o f f e n s e , o b s t r u c t i n g a peace o f f i c e r , has t h e s e elements: (1) knowingly, ( 2 ) o b s t r u c t s , impairs, o r h i n d e r s , (3) t h e enforcement o f t h e criminal law, t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n of t h e peace, o r t h e performance o f a government function. The t h i r d element i s n o t common t o e i t h e r of t h e o t h e r o f f e n s e s and makes it r e a d i l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e t w o . Likewise each o f t h e o t h e r o f f e n s e s c o n t a i n s a t l e a s t one element n o t common t o t h e o f f e n s e o f o b s t r u c t i n g a peace o f f i c e r : aggravated a s s a u l t r e q u i r e s a reasonable apprehen- s i o n o f s e r i o u s b o d i l y i n j u r y and escape r e q u i r e s an a r r e s t . In l i g h t o f t h e above d i s c u s s i o n , defendant h a s n o t shown t h a t t h e charges a g a i n s t him m e e t any of t h e e x c e p t i o n s set f o r t h i n fj a6-11-502, incl-uding e x c e p t i o n (1) . In h i s argument, d e f e n d a n t merely a s s e r t s t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n t c h a r g e s w e r e born o f t h e same t r a n s a c t i o n and t h u s w e r e a v i o l a t i o n o f t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t double jeopardy. However, a s fj 46-11-502, quoted above, makes c l e a r , d i f f e r e n t c h a r g e s may, and o f t e n do, a r i s e from a s i n g l e o r c l o s e l y r e l a t e d e v e n t . The c r i t i c a l i n q u i r y i s w h e t h ~ r t h e s t a t u t o r y e l e m e n t s o f t h e v a r i o u s o f f e n s e s a r e wholly i n c l u d a b l e w i t h i n one a n o t h e r . H e r e , t h e o f f e n s e s o f a g g r a v a t e d a s s a u l t , e s c a p e , and o b s t r u c t i n g a peace o f f i c e r , examined by t h e i r s t a t u t o r y e l e m e n t s , a r e n o t co-extensive. Each h a s a t l e a s t one element which d i s t i n g u i s h e s it from t h e o t h e r o f f e n s e s . T h e r e f o w , t h i s Court h o l d s t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n v i c t i o n s on t h e t h r e e crimes charged d o e s n o t c o n s t i t u t e double jeopardy. The c o n v i c t i o n s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t a r e a f f i r m e d . W e concur: ' L - '