People v. Gresham

Summary

The California Court of Appeal affirmed Royce Day Gresham’s conviction for resisting a peace officer under Penal Code section 148, subdivision (a)(1). The court held that the statute requires proof that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the person resisted was a peace officer performing official duties, rejecting an actual-knowledge requirement. The court also upheld the denial of Gresham’s Pitchess motion.

Holdings

1. A conviction under Penal Code section 148, subdivision (a)(1), requires the jury to find that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the person being resisted was a peace officer engaged in the performance of official duties; actual knowledge is not required.
2. Substantial evidence supported Gresham's conviction for resisting a peace officer.
3. The trial court properly denied Gresham's Pitchess motion because he failed to establish a plausible factual foundation for discovery concerning excessive force or false reporting.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Penal Code section 148, subdivision (a)(1), requires proof that the defendant actually knew the person being resisted was a peace officer, or whether it is sufficient that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that fact.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported Gresham's conviction for resisting a peace officer.
3. Whether the trial court properly denied Gresham's Pitchess motion seeking discovery concerning alleged excessive force and false reporting by the arresting deputies.

Disposition

affirmed