Background
Doug Arthur Wolshlager entered the Lincoln Township Hall seeking a Freedom of Information Act form. Township employees testified that he yelled vulgarities, refused requests to move away from the payment counter or leave the building, poked the building official with a pen, and made statements about knowing where employees lived and taking care of them and their families. Several employees became uncomfortable and called police.
When officers arrived, Officer Wesley Springer-Grounds told Wolshlager that township employees wanted him removed and that he had to leave. Wolshlager refused, pulled his arm from the officer’s grasp, and was arrested. A jury convicted him of disturbing the peace and resisting or obstructing Springer-Grounds but acquitted him of the obstruction count involving the second officer. Wolshlager, who had waived counsel and represented himself at trial, appealed on sufficiency-of-the-evidence grounds and argued that the trial court failed to refer him for indigency screening after he expressed interest in obtaining public-defender assistance to secure an expert witness.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that sufficient evidence supported the disturbing-the-peace conviction. Viewed in the prosecution’s favor, the evidence permitted a rational jury to find that Wolshlager intentionally disrupted the township hall’s otherwise quiet environment and interfered with employees’ duties through his yelling, vulgar language, threatening statements, physical contact with the building official, and refusal to cooperate.
The court also held that sufficient evidence supported the obstruction conviction. Springer-Grounds’s statement that Wolshlager “gotta go,” made after explaining that township employees wanted him removed, constituted a lawful command rather than a mere request. Wolshlager knowingly failed to comply, expressly said he would not leave, and remained for more than 30 seconds before the officer first grasped his arm. Because this failure independently supported the conviction, the court did not decide whether the later warrantless arrest was lawful.
Finally, the court held that the trial court complied with Michigan Court Rule 6.005(B). The judge identified the chief public defender by name, directed Wolshlager to contact that office, and explained that the office would require him to complete a form and undergo screening before deciding whether he qualified for representation. The Court of Appeals therefore affirmed the judgment.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant’s aggressive conduct, threats, and interference with public employees’ work can support a disturbing-the-peace conviction when the conduct goes beyond merely expressing a position or opinion.
- An officer’s contextually clear statement that a person “gotta go” may constitute a lawful command, and knowingly refusing that command can support an obstruction conviction.
- A trial court satisfies the referral requirement for indigency screening by directing the defendant to the identified appointing authority and explaining the screening process.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that courts evaluate an officer’s words in context when determining whether they amount to a command under Michigan’s obstruction statute. Polite language or the use of informal phrasing does not necessarily make an instruction optional.
The opinion also provides guidance for courts handling self-represented defendants who later express interest in limited public-defender assistance: a specific referral to the appointing authority, coupled with an explanation of the required screening process, can satisfy MCR 6.005(B).