-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

August 8, 2017

v No. 331960

Monroe Circuit Court

JAMES ANDREW STEVENS, JR., LC No. 15-242249-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: SHAPIRO, P.J., and GLEICHER and O’BRIEN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

A jury convicted defendant of assaulting, resisting or obstructing a police officer causing 

injury, MCL 750.81d(2), and assaulting, resisting, or obstructing a police officer, MCL 

750.81d(1). Defendant correctly posits that the trial court erroneously omitted an element of the 

offenses from the jury instructions. However, this error was harmless. And defendant’s 

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence lacks merit. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

At approximately 11:30 p.m. on September 2, 2015, the 20-year-old defendant returned 

to the home he shared with his mother and sisters. Defendant had been drinking and became 

angry that his younger sister was not yet home. He argued with his mother, Shannon Billau, 

about her parenting skills. As the argument escalated, defendant shattered a glass bowl. 

Defendant “started . . . getting in [Billau’s] face” and the two stood with foreheads touching until 

defendant “head butt[ed]” her. Billau tried to leave the room, but defendant blocked her path. 

Billau slapped defendant and knocked him down. When defendant attempted to get back up, 

Billau kicked him. Defendant grabbed her ankle and Billau reached for a broom, which she used 

to hit defendant. Defendant eventually left the house. Defendant remained away only briefly. 

During his absence, his sister arrived home. Upon defendant’s return, he flung open the door 

with enough force to put a hole in the drywall. Billau instructed her daughter to go outside and 

call 911. 

Two Monroe County Sheriff’s deputies arrived minutes later. After speaking with Billau 

and her daughter, the deputies decided to place defendant in the back of the patrol vehicle. 

Defendant struggled, yelled, and swore at the deputies. One used his Taser to stun defendant 

into submission. He had to deploy the Taser a second time as defendant continued to fend off 

the deputies’ attempts to handcuff him. At trial, defendant essentially admitted that he resisted 
-2-

arrest, asserting that he refused to follow the deputies’ orders to place his hands behind his back 

because they did not cite a reason for his arrest. Once defendant was secured in the patrol car, 

one of the deputies noted that his tooth had been chipped in the fray. He later visited a dentist 

who filled in the gap.

II. JURY INSTRUCTION

Defendant contends that he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court failed to 

instruct the jury on all elements of assaulting, resisting or obstructing a police officer. 

Specifically, the court did not instruct the jury that the underlying arrest had to be valid. We 

review de novo such challenges to the court’s jury instructions. People v Gillis, 474 Mich 105, 

113; 712 NW2d 419 (2006). 

The trial court did err in omitting an element from the jury instructions. To support 

conviction under MCL 750.81d, the prosecutor must establish (1) “that defendant resisted or 

obstructed or opposed a police officer . . . include[ing by] the use or threatened use of physical 

interference or force or a knowing failure to comply with a lawful command,” and (2) “defendant 

knew . . . that the person defendant resisted, obstructed, and/or opposed was a police officer 

performing [his or] her duties at the time.” People v Quinn, 305 Mich App 484, 494; 853 NW2d 

383 (2014). The offense also includes a common-law element, however. The prosecutor “must 

establish that the officers’ actions were lawful as an element of resisting or obstructing a police 

officer.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). As an element of resisting and obstructing 

an officer, the lawfulness of the deputies’ arrest of defendant was a question for the jury. See id. 

To this end, the trial court was required to instruct the jury consistent with MI Crim JI 13.5 that 

“[a]n arrest is legal if it is:”

(2) Made by an officer relying on an arrest warrant for the defendant issued by a 

court.

(3) Made by an officer for a crime that [(he/she) reasonably believed] was 

committed in [his/her] presence, if it was made as soon as reasonably possible 

afterward.

(4) Made by an officer who had reasonable cause to believe that the crime of 

________ was committed by the defendant. “Reasonable cause” means having 

enough information to lead an ordinarily careful person to believe that the 

defendant had committed the crime of ________________.

The trial court gave no such instruction. This was error.

Yet, the trial court’s instructional error was harmless and defendant is not entitled to a 

new trial. “[I]f an applicable instruction was not given, the defendant bears the burden of 

establishing that the trial court’s failure to give the requested instruction resulted in a miscarriage 

of justice.” People v Riddle, 467 Mich 116, 124; 649 NW2d 30 (2002). A defendant’s 

conviction will not be overturned “unless, after examining the nature of the error in light of the 

weight and strength of the untainted evidence, it affirmatively appears that it is more probable 

than not that the error was outcome determinative.” Id. at 124-125.
-3-

The record in this case indisputably supports that defendant’s arrest was legal. 

Accordingly, the jury’s verdict would not be altered by the inclusion of the subject instruction. 

The deputies had probable cause to place defendant under arrest for domestic violence, 

rendering the arrest legal. Probable cause exists

where the facts and circumstances within an officer’s knowledge and of which he 

has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a 

man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being 

committed . . . [and is] judged from the totality of the circumstances before the 

arresting officers. [People v Cohen, 294 Mich App 70, 75; 816 NW2d 474 (2011) 

(quotation marks omitted).]

The deputies spoke to Billau and her daughter before approaching defendant. Billau and 

her daughter explained to the deputies that defendant had been drinking and became combative 

during an argument with his mother. Billau informed the officers that defendant was “chest 

bumping” her and that she fell on the floor. While the deputies spoke to the women, defendant 

became agitated and he repeatedly cursed and accused his mother and sister of lying. Billau did 

not tell the deputies that she had slapped, kicked, and hit defendant with a broom. But defendant 

decided to obstruct the deputies rather than giving his side of the story. Therefore, the deputies 

had no reason to suspect that defendant may have been defending himself against his mother’s 

aggression. With the information at hand, the deputies reasonably believed that defendant had 

assaulted his mother and needed to be detained.

As the evidence more than adequately supported the legality of defendant’s arrest, 

defendant cannot establish an error that affected the outcome of his trial. He therefore is not 

entitled to relief.

III. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for 

resisting arrest causing injury. We review sufficiency challenges de novo, viewing the evidence 

in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine if the prosecutor could prove the 

elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Solloway, 316 Mich App 174, 180; 

891 NW2d 255 (2016). 

MCL 750.81d(2) provides, in relevant part, “An individual who assaults, batters, wounds, 

resists, obstructs, opposes, or endangers a person who the individual knows or has reason to 

know is performing his or her duties causing a bodily injury requiring medical attention or 

medical care to that person is guilty of a felony.” (Emphasis added.) The injured deputy 

testified that he “sought treatment with [his] family . . . dentist” following this incident. The
-4-

dentist “filled in where the chip was missing.” Clearly, the deputy’s bodily injury required 

medical attention or medical care as the deputy sought out and actually received such care as a 

result of defendant’s actions.

We affirm.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro 

/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher 

/s/ Colleen A. O'Brien