Opinion ID: 884167
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: issues

Text: Did the District Court err in denying Appellant's motion to dismiss the charge of resisting arrest on the basis of insufficient evidence? The standard of review for determining sufficiency of the evidence is 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. State v. Granby (1997), ____ Mont. ____, 939 P.2d 1006, 1009. In No. 95-203, Appellant was charged with resisting arrest in addition to his DUI charge. Appellant argues that sufficient evidence did not exist to support the charge of resisting arrest. Section 45-7-301(1), MCA, provides the following: A person commits the offense of resisting arrest if he knowingly prevents or attempts to prevent a peace officer from effecting an arrest by: (a) using or threatening to use physical force or violence against the peace officer or another; or (b) using any other means which creates a risk of causing physical injury to a peace officer or another. In making his argument, Appellant relies solely on subpart (a) of the above statute. Appellant asserts that he never used or threatened physical violence against the arresting officer and, therefore, could not be guilty of resisting arrest. The State responds by noting that § 45-7-301(1), MCA, has a subpart (b) as well as a subpart (a), and that under subpart (b), a person is guilty of resisting arrest if the person merely created a risk of causing physical injury to the peace officer. The State argues that [o]nce an officer has to engage in a physical struggle with an arrestee in order to prevent him from driving away, a risk that the officer or another might be physically injured is created. We agree. The record shows that Appellant stated his intent to drive home, and that when the officer tried to prevent Appellant from leaving, he grabbed on to the mirror and would not let go. Finally, the officer was forced to pry Appellant's hand off of the mirror and wrestle him into handcuffs in order to effectuate the arrest. We conclude that under these circumstances, there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have found that Appellant resisted arrest by creating a risk of causing physical injury to the police officer.