Case Name: Randy BOCKSNICK v. STATE of Arkansas
Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1979-11-07
Citations: 267 Ark. 731
Docket Number: CA CR 79-83
Parties: Randy BOCKSNICK v. STATE of Arkansas
Judges: Wright, C. J., and Hays, J., dissenting.
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 267
Pages: 731–733

Head Matter:
Randy BOCKSNICK v. STATE of Arkansas
CA CR 79-83
595 S.W. 2d 227
Opinion delivered November 7, 1979
Rehearing denied December 12, 1979
Affirmed by Supreme Court February 11, 1980
Released for publication March 17, 1980
Robert Irwin, for appellant.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Catherine Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Opinion:
George Howard, Jr., Judge.
The appellant was acquitted, by a jury, of aggravated robbery, but was found guilty of interfering with a law enforcement officer. Appellant received a five-year term to the Arkansas Department of Correction and a fine of $1,000.00.
For reversal, appellant claims his conviction is not supported by substantial evidence.
The facts are: Appellant was observed by Officer L. V. Collins, City Marshal of London, carrying a 30-30 rifle and refused to surrender the rifle to Officer Collins. Appellant directed Officer Collins to stand back or appellant would kill him. Appellant proceeded to a local grocery store and at tempted to obtain ammunition which served as the basis for the aggravated robbery charge.
Subsequently, two Pope County Deputy Sheriffs who had been summoned by Officer Collins to assist him were fired upon by appellant when the deputy sheriffs approached appellant and ordered him to surrender. The refusal of the appellant to submit either to the demands of Officer Collins as well as the deputy sheriffs constitutes the basis of the charge of interfering with a law enforcement officer.
It is undisputed that neither Officer Collins, nor the deputy sheriffs were seeking to serve any legal processes upon anyone, not even appellant, but their prime concern was to induce the appellant to surrender his rifle and to submit to arrest.
The applicable statute provides:
A person commits the offense of interference with a law enforcement officer if he knowingly employs or threatens to employ physical force against a law enforcement officer engaged in performing his official duties.
We are persuaded that Breakfield v. State, 263 Ark. 398, 566 S.W. 2d 729 (1978) is dispositive of the issue before us. The Arkansas Supreme Court said in Breakfield:
Criminal statutes must be strictly construed with doubts being resolved in favor of the defendant . . . Applying this standard to this case and considering the evidence, we do not find substantial evidence to support the conviction of Breakfield for interfering with a police officer in the performance of his duties. Breakfield should have been charged with resisting arrest, or disorderly conduct, or both. However, those charges are not before us.
Reversed and remanded.
Wright, C. J., and Hays, J., dissenting.