PEOPLE OF MI V HARRY HENRY DUCHESNE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
October 19, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 247947
Jackson Circuit Court
LC No. 02-002964-FH
HARRY HENRY DUCHESNE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Saad and O’Connell, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his conviction of resisting and obstructing a process server,
MCL 750.479(1), entered after a jury trial. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant was charged with resisting and obstructing a process server and felonious
assault, MCL 750.82, in connection with an incident that occurred when Jeff Kirkpatrick came to
his residence to seize property to satisfy a debt. Kirkpatrick testified that he introduced himself,
displayed his badge, and gave defendant a copy of the court order that authorized the seizure of
property. At one point, defendant displayed a rifle. Defendant testified that Kirkpatrick did not
display a badge or other identification and did not show him a court order. He indicated that he
displayed a rifle, but denied that he pointed it at anyone. The jury acquitted defendant of
felonious assault, but convicted him of resisting and obstructing a process server.
In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence question, we view the evidence in a light most
favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could conclude that the
elements of the offense were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We do not interfere with the
jury’s role of determining the weight of the evidence or the credibility of witnesses. People v
Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 514-515; 489 NW2d 748 (1992), amended 441 Mich 1201 (1992); People
v Milstead, 250 Mich App 391, 404; 648 NW2d 648 (2002). A trier of fact may make
reasonable inferences from direct or circumstantial evidence in the record. People v Vaughn,
186 Mich App 376, 379-380; 465 NW2d 365 (1990).
The elements of resisting and obstructing a duly authorized person serving or attempting
to serve a lawful order are: (1) the conduct alleged obstructed, resisted, or opposed (2) a duly
authorized person (3) in his prescribed duties, and (4) the conduct was done knowingly and
willfully. MCL 750.479(1). To do an act knowingly and willfully means that the defendant
-1-
intended to do the act to a duly authorized person, knowing the person to be so authorized.
People v Gleisner, 115 Mich App 196, 198-199; 320 NW2d 340 (1982). The offense requires
that a defendant oppose a duly authorized person by actual physical interference or by expressed
or implied threats of physical interference. People v Vasquez, 465 Mich 83, 99-100, 114-115;
631 NW2d 711 (2001). Minimal circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove state of mind.
People v Acosta, 153 Mich App 504, 512-513; 396 NW2d 463 (1986).
Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of resisting
and obstructing a process server. We disagree and affirm. Kirkpatrick stated that he identified
himself, displayed a badge, and gave defendant a copy of the court order. The jury was entitled
to accept this evidence and to reject defendant’s contradictory testimony, Milstead, supra, and to
infer from that evidence that defendant knew that Kirkpatrick was a duly authorized process
server who was attempting to execute a valid court order. Vaughn, supra. Moreover, the jury
was entitled to reject defendant’s assertion that he displayed a rifle in order to protect his
property and to infer that this act constituted an implied threat to physically interfere with
Kirkpatrick’s execution of the order. Id.; Acosta, supra. The evidence, viewed in a light most
favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction. Wolfe, supra.
We review a trial court’s decision on an evidentiary issue and its decision on a request for
an adjournment for an abuse of discretion. People v Bahoda, 448 Mich 261, 289; 531 NW2d
659 (1995); People v Coy, 258 Mich App 1, 17; 669 NW2d 831 (2003).
Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his pretrial motion
to adjourn the proceedings so that audio recordings made by Kirkpatrick could be tested to
determine if any portion thereof had been altered or deleted. We disagree. Defendant’s assertion
that the recordings might have been deleted or altered was unsubstantiated. The trial court did
not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s request for an adjournment under the
circumstances. Id. Moreover, defendant affirmatively waived any error when he indicated to the
trial court that he had no objection to the introduction of the recordings. People v Ortiz, 249
Mich App 297, 311; 642 NW2d 417 (2001). No miscarriage of justice occurred. People v
Lukity, 460 Mich 484, 493-496; 596 NW2d 607 (1999).
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.