Criminal Law : Resisting Arrest  – Sufficiency Of Evidence

Where a defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction for resisting arrest, arguing that his arrest had already been completed when he struggled with officers on the way to a police car, the judgment is reversed because the arrest was completed when he was restrained and in the control of the officers, which occurred when he was handcuffed, seated and surrounded by officers.

Fact-specific inquiry

Dissenting opinion by Powell, J.: “The principal opinion holds no rational fact-finder could have found the arrest was ongoing at the time of Ajak’s resistance because he was restrained in the kitchen and his arrest was complete when he was escorted to the patrol car. This holding fails to account for the continuous and ongoing nature of an arrest and is contrary to this Court’s standard of review….

“A bright-line test for determining when an arrest has been effected is impractical because encounters between police and individuals suspected of criminal activity vary significantly. Accordingly, I agree with the principal opinion that whether an arrest has been effected ‘depends on the specific circumstances of each case’ and ;[e]ach case requires a fact-specific inquiry to determine at what point the arrest is complete.’ It is the duty of the jury to look at the facts of each case and determine whether an arrest was effected.”

State v. Ajak (MLW No. 71527/Case No. SC96333 – 21 pages) (Supreme Court of Missouri, Stith, J.; Draper, Russell and Breckenridge, JJ., concur; Powell, J., dissents in separate opinion filed; Fischer, C.J. and Wilson, J., concur in opinion of Powell, J.) Appealed from circuit court, Buchanan  County, Marquart, J. (Amy M. Bartholow, Columbia, argued for appellant) (Kristina S. Zeit, St. Joseph, for respondent).

Read the full text of this opinion. (PDF)