Court Opinion

ID: 9635925
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 14:10:24.807049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:38.973269
License: Public Domain

LOWENSTEIN, Chief Judge,
concurring.
I reluctantly concur. Section 575.150.2, RSMo.1986, contemplates an arrest ..'. “for any crime or ordinance violation.” The prosecution introduced the Gladstone ordinance for failure to dim the lights. As required by the jury instructions, the jury was required to determine if the officer was making an arrest “for failing to dim headlights within 500 feet of an approaching vehicle.” MAI-CR3d 329.60. For some reason, the prosecution never introduced any evidence to allow the jury to make this finding on an essential element to obtain a conviction. “It is clear from the statute in question that the state must prove, as an element of the crime of resisting arrest, that the arrest the defendant is charged with resisting was for a crime or ordinance violation.” State v. Johnson, 741 S.W.2d 70, 72 (Mo.App.1987).
The ultimate question then is does a conviction for resisting arrest under § 575.150 require proof of an ultimate arrest, charge or conviction for the conduct that led to the chase, or can the prosecution merely, as here introduce evidence that the officer saw amounts to an ordinance violation to support the resisting arrest charge? Johnson, answers that question by saying, “While a proper information charging Johnson with a crime or ordinance violation, such as peace disturbance or malicious destruction of property, could have been filed, and possibly proven, it was not. Criminal convictions cannot be based on speculation of what might have been.” Id. at 73. Also, see State v. Long, 802 S.W.2d 573, 576 (Mo.App.1991) for the proposition, “the offense of resisting arrest cannot occur unless a law enforcement officer actually contemplates an arrest,” citing State v. Wanner, 751 S.W.2d 789, 791 (Mo.App. 1988), (emphasis added). In State v. Shanks, 809 S.W.2d 413, 418 (Mo.App. 1991), the court said it is logical to require in a conviction for resisting arrest under § 575.150, an arrest must be in progress when the resistance occurs. In this case, the officer did not contemplate or arrest the defendant for any violation stemming from what the officer saw.
Perhaps because of the morbid consequences it is galling to have to support a reversal and discharge. This statute is in need of a complete overhaul. Section 575.-150, does not contemplate the factual situation involved here, or in so many current day cases that involve police being unable to communicate with a citizen other than by flashing lights and sirens from one car to another. A motorist, such as here, should not be allowed to disregard the obvious signals of the police. They should not be allowed to flee, and avoid the consequences of resisting arrest banking on the fact there was never contemplation of or an arrest ever effectuated.
The statute seems to be written in terms of the knowledge of the citizen that the officer is making an arrest, rather than the officer’s knowledge in chasing. Be that as it may, the requirement of there being an arrest contemplated but uneffectuated due to flight or an actual arrest being made is a fail-safe against the police conjuring up a reason to support an arrest for some reason other than why a chase was instigated. Even if the officer in the case at bar was only intending to issue a warning about the lights, once the defendant sped, the officer would have been justified in making a subsequent arrest for speeding. Footnote 4 on page 577 of State v. Long, 802 S.W.2d at 577, although dicta, supports the proposition that during flight some conduct might come to the attention of the officer that could lead to an arrest. That did not occur here, for there was no arrest or citation for speeding. The same hold true for a failure to dim the lights. This woman was never arrested for or charged with the ordinance violation described in the verdict director. The state could have made a closer case had the underlying charge and the instruction here been for driving with a suspended license. That would squarely place the question before the court whether the underlying charge in a resisting case could be based on the state of mind of the citizen, *754and not based on the officers intent to pursue and make an arrest.