IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

March 3, 2021 Session

STATE OF TENNESSEE v. DONALD L. ELLIOTT

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Weakley County

No. 2019-CR-65 Jeff Parham, Judge

___________________________________

No. W2020-00769-CCA-R3-CD

___________________________________

A Weakley County jury convicted the defendant, Donald L. Elliott, of resisting arrest for 

which he received a sentence of six months with all but seven days suspended to supervised 

probation. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting 

his conviction. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the jury’s verdict.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

J. ROSS DYER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JAMES CURWOOD WITT, JR.

and TIMOTHY L. EASTER, JJ., joined.

Jessica F. Butler, Assistant Public Defender - Appellate Division, Franklin, Tennessee (on 

appeal) and Brent Bradberry, Assistant Public Defender, Dresden, Tennessee (at trial), for 

the appellant, Donald L. Elliott.

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General and Reporter; Katharine K. Decker, Assistant 

Attorney General; Tommy A. Thomas, District Attorney General; and Colin Johnson, 

Assistant District Attorney General, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

Procedural and Factual History

On October 4, 2018, Officer Aaron Gallimore with the Martin Police Department 

responded to a medical assistance call. According to dispatch, the patient, who was later 

determined to be the defendant’s grandson, was having seizures. When Officer Gallimore 

arrived on the scene, the patient was “being very, very combative, kicking his legs, and 

flailing his arms around.” Officer Gallimore aided the emergency medical personnel in 

03/31/2021
- 2 -

securing the patient to the gurney and placing him in the ambulance. However, once in the 

ambulance, the patient was able to free his arms and legs from the straps and again began 

to kick and flail his arms. Therefore, Officer Gallimore entered the ambulance to help 

restrain the patient and prevent him from hurting himself and others. 

While Officer Gallimore was inside the ambulance helping restrain the patient, the 

defendant began accusing him of “trying to harm [the defendant’s] grandson.” Once the 

patient was restrained, Officer Gallimore exited the ambulance and instructed the 

defendant and other bystanders to back away from the vehicle so it could drive away. Not 

only did the defendant refuse to comply with Officer Gallimore’s instructions, but he 

actually moved closer to the ambulance, “bearing his weight against the [ambulance] 

door.” When the defendant refused additional directives, Officer Gallimore used force to 

move the defendant away from the ambulance. After stumbling as Officer Gallimore 

moved him away from the ambulance, the defendant came after Officer Gallimore “in a 

very aggressive manner, shouting profanities, making threatening statements, before 

shoving [Officer Gallimore] with both hands.” 

After being assaulted by the defendant and in order to prevent things from escalating 

further, Officer Gallimore attempted to place the defendant under arrest and directed the 

defendant to place his hands behind his back. The defendant refused. Officer Gallimore 

then instructed the defendant to get on the ground. Again, the defendant refused. After 

the defendant refused several additional directives to get on the ground, Officer Gallimore 

physically took the defendant to the ground. Once on the ground, Officer Gallimore again 

made several requests for the defendant to place his hands behind his back, and again, the 

defendant refused to comply, tried to roll off his stomach, and continued to curse and 

threaten the officer. After some time, Officer Gallimore was able to gain control over the 

defendant’s arms and place the defendant under arrest.

In addition to Officer Gallimore’s testimony, the State offered the testimony of John 

Mitchell, a firefighter with the Martin Fire Department who also responded to the call that 

day. Mr. Mitchell’s testimony was relatively similar to that of Officer Gallimore.

Following deliberations, the jury found the defendant guilty of resisting arrest but 

not guilty of assault, possession of drug paraphernalia, and disorderly conduct. Following 

a sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a sentence of six months with all but seven 

days suspended to supervised probation. The defendant filed a timely motion for a new 

trial, which the trial court denied. This timely appeal followed. 
- 3 -

Analysis

On appeal, the defendant argues the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to 

support his conviction for resisting arrest. Specifically, the defendant contends the State 

failed to show he “physically prevented” Officer Gallimore from arresting him. The State 

submits that “properly viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, ample 

evidence supported the defendant’s conviction.” Upon our review of the record and the 

applicable law, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

When examining the sufficiency of the evidence, we must consider “whether, after 

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of 

fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable 

doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). This Court does not reweigh the 

evidence; rather, it presumes that the jury has resolved all conflicts in the testimony and 

drawn all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the State. See State v. 

Sheffield, 676 S.W.2d 542, 547 (Tenn. 1984); State v. Cabbage, 571 S.W.2d 832, 835 

(Tenn. 1978). Questions regarding witness credibility, conflicts in testimony, and the 

weight and value to be given to evidence were resolved by the jury. See State v. Bland, 

958 S.W.2d 651, 659 (Tenn. 1997). 

A guilty verdict “removes the presumption of innocence and replaces it with a 

presumption of guilt, and [on appeal] the defendant has the burden of illustrating why the 

evidence is insufficient to support the jury’s verdict.” Bland, 958 S.W.2d at 659; State v. 

Tuggle, 639 S.W.2d 913, 914 (Tenn. 1982). A guilty verdict “may not be based solely 

upon conjecture, guess, speculation, or a mere possibility.” State v. Cooper, 736 S.W.2d 

125, 129 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1987). However, “[t]here is no requirement that the State’s 

proof be uncontroverted or perfect.” State v. Williams, 657 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tenn. 1983). 

Put another way, the State is not burdened with “an affirmative duty to rule out every 

hypothesis except that of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson, 443 U.S. at 326.

The foregoing standard “applies to findings of guilt based upon direct evidence, 

circumstantial evidence, or a combination of [both] direct and circumstantial 

evidence.” State v. Pendergrass, 13 S.W.3d 389, 392-93 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1999). Both 

“direct and circumstantial evidence should be treated the same when weighing 

the sufficiency of such evidence.” State v. Dorantes, 331 S.W.3d 370, 381 (Tenn. 2011). 

The duty of this court “on appeal of a conviction is not to contemplate all plausible 

inferences in the [d]efendant’s favor, but to draw all reasonable inferences from the 

evidence in favor of the State.” State v. Sisk, 343 S.W.3d 60, 67 (Tenn. 2011).

The defendant was convicted of resisting arrest. Tennessee Code Annotated section 

39-16-602(a) provides that it is a criminal offense for “a person to intentionally prevent or 
- 4 -

obstruct anyone known to the person to be a law enforcement officer . . . from effecting a 

stop, frisk, halt, arrest or search of any person, including the defendant, by using force 

against the law enforcement officer or another.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-16-602(a). Force 

is defined as “compulsion by the use of physical power or violence and shall be broadly 

construed to accomplish the purposes of this title.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-106(a)(12). 

“‘Passive resistance’ generally does not constitute using force as contemplated by the 

preventing or obstructing an arrest statute.” State v. Burgess, 532 S.W.3d 372, 393 (Tenn. 

Crim. App. 2017) (citing State v. Corder, 854 S.W.2d 653, 655 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1992) 

(concluding that the defendant’s not moving and directing obscene language at officers 

were insufficient to support a conviction for resisting arrest)). 

Here, the defendant did more than passively resist Officer Gallimore’s instructions. 

According to both the eyewitness testimony and the body camera video of the incident, the 

defendant acted aggressively towards Officer Gallimore from the outset of the incident. 

The defendant initially refused the officer’s request to place his hands behind his back. We 

also note that not only did the defendant refuse Officer Gallimore’s instructions, but he

continued to act aggressively towards Officer Gallimore. In an attempt to gain control of 

the situation and the defendant, Officer Gallimore instructed the defendant to get on the 

ground. Again, the defendant refused the officer’s orders, requiring Officer Gallimore to 

physically take the defendant to the ground. Despite being on the ground, the defendant 

continued to disregard Officer Gallimore’s directives and refused to place his hands behind 

his back. Additionally, the defendant cursed and threatened to sue Officer Gallimore, 

attempted to roll over from his stomach, and physically resisted the officer’s attempts to 

gain control of his arms and hands. While the defendant argues his resistance amounted to 

nothing more than “less than a second of nearly imperceptible reflexive movement of [the 

defendant’s hand],” the testimony and the video evidence do not support his claim. Rather, 

the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the State, reveals the defendant 

intentionally used force against and physically resisted Officer Gallimore, who was

attempting to effectuate the defendant’s arrest.

This Court is required to construe the element of force broadly. Moreover, “this 

Court has consistently held that a defendant’s efforts in preventing an officer from 

handcuffing him are sufficient to support the element of force.” State v. Sangria Venturia 

Baker, Jr., No. W2018-00732-CCA-R3-CD, 2019 WL 2404977, at *6 (Tenn. Crim. App. 

June 7, 2019) (finding sufficient evidence where the defendant “refused to place his arms 

behind his back so that he could be handcuffed,” and he “lay on one arm and stretched the 

other away from his body,” struggling with the officers before they were able to cuff 

him), perm. app. denied (Tenn. Sept. 20, 2019); State v. Gary Mitchell Hestand, No. 

M2014-02208-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 10684326, at *8 (Tenn. Crim. App. Oct. 7, 2015) 

(finding sufficient evidence where the defendant “resisted official commands to halt and 

to show his hands in order to be handcuffed,” and when he continued to resist, both deputies 
- 5 -

had to subdue him “on the ground in order to handcuff him”); State v. Jeremy D. Parvin, 

No. E2014-01569-CCA-R3-CD, 2015 WL 2128585, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. May 6, 2015) 

(finding sufficient evidence where the defendant pulled away from officer, balled up his 

fist, then “locked his hands beneath him” when officer attempted to handcuff him); State 

v. Jonathan Lamont Jones, No. W2011-02311-CCA-R3-CD, 2012 WL 4057263, at *3 

(Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 17, 2012) (finding sufficient evidence where the defendant pulled 

his hands away from the arresting officers and “continued to resist the officers when they 

attempted to handcuff him”); State v. Timothy Wayne Grimes, No. M2001-02385-CCAR3-CD, 2002 WL 1885053, at *4 (Tenn. Crim. App. Aug. 16, 2002) 

(finding sufficient evidence where the defendant “locked his arms, thus preventing the 

officers from putting handcuffs on him”); State v. Daniel M. Tidwell, No. 01C01-9807-

CC-00288, 1999 WL 436840, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 30, 1999) 

(finding sufficient evidence where the defendant “flailed his arms and struggled with the 

officers” as they were attempting to handcuff him); State v. Edward Iroghuehi Isibor, No. 

01C01-9610-CC-00441, 1997 WL 602945, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. Sept. 30, 1997)

(finding sufficient evidence where the defendant “flailed his arms” in an effort to prevent 

being handcuffed); State v. Ronald David Lee, No. 03C01-9410-CR-0039, 1995 WL 

395840, at *5 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 6, 1995) (finding sufficient evidence where the

defendant wrestled with the officer attempting to handcuff him); State v. William Randy 

Jackson, No. 02C01-9405-CC-00097, 1995 WL 81428, at *1 (Tenn. Crim. App. Mar. 1, 

1995) (finding sufficient evidence where the defendant struggled with officers to avoid 

being handcuffed). Under these circumstances, we conclude that the defendant did more 

than just engage in a negligible use of force.

Though many of the cases cited above arguably had more egregious circumstances 

than are present here -- a fact observed by the defendant in his appellate brief and during 

oral argument -- we conclude that the abundance of decisions citing similar facts support 

the jury’s determination that the defendant forcibly and intentionally prevented or 

obstructed Officer Gallimore from effectuating the defendant’s arrest. Accordingly, we

hold that the evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction for resisting

arrest.

Conclusion

Based upon the foregoing authorities and reasoning, the judgment of the trial court 

is affirmed. 

____________________________________

 J. ROSS DYER, JUDGE