-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

November 3, 2015 

v No. 321832 

Iron Circuit Court 

MAUREEN JAYNE GAGNE, LC No. 13-009357-FH 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: MARKEY, P.J., and STEPHENS and RIORDAN, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Defendant appeals as of right from her conviction following a jury trial of resisting and 

obstructing, MCL 750.81d(1), for which she was sentenced to 30 days’ in jail. For the reasons 

explained below, we affirm. 

 In June 2013, two police officers arrived at defendant’s home to serve a warrant for her 

arrest for assault and battery and to retrieve her daughter’s medicine. Another officer had 

informed defendant several days earlier that she would be notified and given the opportunity to 

turn herself in if an arrest warrant was issued. The two officers who went to her home were not 

aware of this conversation. 

 One of the two officers knocked on defendant’s door while holding the arrest warrant; the 

second officer stayed a few steps back. The officers had decided that they would not initially 

inform defendant of the warrant because they wanted her assistance in obtaining her daughter’s 

medicine first. Defendant opened her door, stuck her arm out, and asked for her arrest papers. 

When asked about the medicine, she told the officers she had flushed it down the toilet. At that 

point she tried to close the screen door, but one officer grabbed it out of her hand and again 

asked about the medicine. When defendant tried to close the inner wooden door, the officer 

stuck his foot out to prevent it from closing. He entered defendant’s home, grabbed her arm, and 

told her she was under arrest and should put her arms behind her back. When defendant tried to 

break free, the officer tripped her to gain control of the situation. She continued to struggle as 

the officers placed her in handcuffs. 

On appeal, defendant claims that her conviction should be reversed and the charge 

dismissed because the officers failed to meet the requirements of MCL 764.18 (arrest under 

warrant) and MCL 764.21 (right to break open door). Defendant preserved her challenge based 

on MCL 764.21 by relying on the statute in support of a pretrial motion to dismiss the resisting 
-2- 

and obstructing charge. Defendant fails to identify where she preserved her argument that the 

arresting officers violated MCL 764.18. Her counsel mentioned the statute during crossexamination of one of the two officers on the scene, but defendant did not rely on the statute as a 

basis for dismissing the charge. Thus, her argument based on MCL 764.18 is unpreserved. 

 This Court reviews questions of law de novo and a lower court’s factual findings for clear 

error. People v McRae, 469 Mich 704, 710; 678 NW2d 425 (2004). Unpreserved issues are 

reviewed for plain error affecting substantial rights. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764; 

597 NW2d 130 (1999). An error is plain when it is clear or obvious. Id. at 763. An error affects 

substantial rights when it “could have been decisive of the outcome” of the case. People v 

Grant, 445 Mich 535, 547; 520 NW2d 123 (1994). Further, “[r]eversal is warranted only when 

the plain, forfeited error resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or when an 

error seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings 

independent of the defendant’s innocence.” Carines, 460 Mich at 763-764 (internal quotation 

marks and citation omitted). 

 Defendant fails to show any violation of MCL 764.21, which provides as follows: 

 A private person, when making an arrest for a felony committed in his or 

her presence, or a peace officer or federal law enforcement officer, when making 

an arrest with a warrant or when making a felony arrest without a warrant as 

authorized by law, may break open an inner or outer door of a building in which 

the person to be arrested is located or is reasonably believed to be located if, after 

announcing his or her purpose, he or she is refused admittance.

By its plain language, MCL 764.21 applies only when a person making an arrest “break[s] open” 

the door of a building. Here, the defendant opened the door to her home, and the arresting 

officers merely entered without her permission after preventing her from closing the door. Thus, 

the trial court did not clearly err in concluding that MCL 764.21 was inapplicable. 

Defendant also fails to establish plain error with respect to MCL 764.18, which provides 

as follows: 

 Where an arrest is made under a warrant, it shall not be necessary for the 

arresting officer personally to have the warrant in his possession but such officer 

must, if possible, inform the person arrested that there is a warrant for his arrest 

and, after the arrest is made, shall show such person said warrant if required, as 

soon as practicable. 

MCL 764.18 applies when a warrant has been issued but the arresting officer does not personally 

have the warrant with him at the time of arrest. Under such a circumstance, “such officer” can 

still make an arrest by complying with the procedures set forth in the statute. The statute is 

inapplicable here, where the uncontested evidence showed that the officers had a warrant for 

defendant’s arrest with them. 

 Defendant also argues that her counsel should have been allowed to read the text of either 

MCL 764.18 or MCL 764.21 to the jury. Having failed to put forth any evidence from which a 

reasonable jury could have believed that the arresting officers violated MCL 764.18 or MCL 
-3- 

764.21, defendant was not entitled to have the instructions read. People v Kolanek, 491 Mich 

382, 411; 817 NW2d 528 (2012) (“If . . . a defendant raises a defense but fails to present 

evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the elements of the defense have 

been met, then the defendant is not entitled to the defense instruction and the jury is precluded 

from considering the defense.”). 

 Affirmed. 

/s/ Jane E. Markey 

/s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens 

/s/ Michael J. Riordan