Dobbs v. State No. PD-0259-13

ALCALA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court in which KELLER, P.J., PRICE, WOMACK, JOHNSON, KEASLER, HERVEY, and COCHRAN, JJ., joined. MEYERS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Appellant, Atha Albert Dobbs, was charged with and convicted of resisting arrest with a deadly weapon. Appellant’s wife, after being informed that Dobbs had been sexually abusing one of her daughters for several years, called the police to report the abuse. In this call, appellant’s wife informed the police that he might attempt to resist arrest or try to hurt himself. In response, the police department sent five sheriff’s deputies to apprehend Dobbs. The deputies surrounded the house, with one deputy covering the front door of the house. This officer witnessed Dobbs carrying a handgun. After the officer ordered Dobbs to drop his weapon, Dobbs instead pointed the gun at his own head and mouthed that he would kill himself. When Dobbs turned around and walked further into the house, one officer followed him in and shot him with a taser. When Dobbs again ignored a direct order to drop his weapon, the officer again shot him with the taser and removed the weapon from Dobbs’ possession. The officers then arrested Dobbs. A jury convicted Dobbs of resisting arrest with a deadly weapon, and the court of appeals found that because his actions were in direct opposition to his imminent arrest.

Issue: Whether Dobbs’ conduct (refusing to drop his weapon and relaying his intention to shoot himself) constituted a use of force against an officer in the officer’s attempt to arrest him, as required by statute.

The court first looked to its standard of review, which required it to discern whether a rational fact-finder could have found the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Then, the court presented the elements of the resisting-arrest statute, the relevant portion being the requirement that the person acts “by using force against the peace officer or another.” TEX. PENAL CODE § 38.03(a). It then looked to the meaning of the words “force” and “against,” which were not defined by the statute. The court, following precedent, decided to determine the words’ plain and ordinary meaning. The court, after considering the words’ dictionary definitions, decided that the language of the statute should be interpreted “as meaning violence or physical aggression, or an immediate threat thereof, in the direction of and/or into contact with, or in opposition or hostility to, a peace officer or another.”

The court disagreed with the lower court’s interpretation that “against” did not require “action directed at or toward an officer,” but only “force exerted in opposition to the officer’s efforts at making an arrest.” The court found this language too broad, as it allowed the word “against” to apply to the entirety of the arrest, as opposed to the individual officer himself. The court held that the statute required the conduct to be directed at the officer, not merely to delay or disrupt the general arrest itself.

The court held that no rational fact-finder could have, with the evidence presented in this case, convicted Dobbs of resisting arrest with a deadly weapon, because he only expressed intent to shoot himself, an act not made against the officer but against himself. Additionally, the court did not find the second refusal to drop the weapon as an act against the officer, simply as one to delay the arrest. The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and rendered a judgment of acquittal.

MEYERS, J., dissenting.

The dissent argued that a rational fact-finder could have decided that merely Dobbs’ possession of a deadly weapon during the arrest “not only put pressure on the officers to delay the arrest but also gave [him] power over those officers.” Judge Meyers disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of the word “against” as used in the statute, finding that the threat against the officers was implied by his conduct, as the mere possession of the weapon implied the threat of deadly force, due to the available immediacy of deadly violence. Judge Meyers determined that the possession of the weapon (with the expressed intent to harm himself) constituted “force” “in opposition to” the arresting officers, and found that the evidence was enough to sustain Dobbs’ conviction.