A March 10 published appellate ruling from San Bernardino has solidified a lower standard for convictions of obstruction of a police officer.
Prosecutors do not have to prove a defendant knew they were resisting an officer—prosecutors just have to prove the defendant reasonably should have known they were resisting an officer, the ruling says.
Highway stroll
The case, People v. Prospero Serna, revolves around Serna’s self-endangerment on an unidentified freeway on Aug. 21, 2021.
Serna was walking in the traffic lines. California Highway Patrol Officer Holguin—whose first name was not identified—was providing security for a weed crew by the side of the freeway. Holguin blocked traffic to protect Serna, and directed him to move to the right shoulder.
Serna moved over, but continued walking northbound. He had blood on his hands, and appeared agitated. He said he did not need help, then identified himself as God, the appellate ruling said.
Serna walked back into the lanes. Holguin got out of his patrol car, and placed himself in front of Serna. He told Serna to stop, and placed his hand on Serna’s chest. Serna pushed him back.
Holguin continued blocking traffic and attempted to keep Serna out of the lanes, and Serna continued pushing Holguin. A backup unit arrived at Holguin’s request. Holguin tasered Serna after he ran back into the lanes again, but it did not affect Serna. Holguin eventually wrestled Serna down and handcuffed him. He was taken to the hospital in an ambulance.
Holguin told Serna he was being detained for obstructing a police officer. Serna said Holguin was not the police. Holguin said that California Highway Patrol Officers are the police.
Holguin later testified that Serna was suffering a mental health crisis. He recommended charges be filed.
Serna was convicted by jury of two misdemeanors: willfully resisting a police officer, and knowingly resisting arrest. He was sentenced to a year probation and 180 days in county jail.
Split decisions
Serna appealed, arguing that his mental health records should have been considered. His mental health crisis prevented him from knowing he was resisting an officer.
The Court of Appeal disagreed, ruling that actual knowledge of resisting an officer is not required to convict.
Section 148(a)(1) “does not require the defendant have actual knowledge they are resisting, delaying or obstructing a police officer. It is sufficient for a jury or trier of fact to find the defendant knew or reasonably should have known the person they resisted was a police officer,” the ruling says.
