COA finds there was sufficient evidence of obstructing and affirms
State v. Kyle R. Appel, 2023AP2083-CR, 2/17/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity
Applying a standard of review exceptionally deferential to a jury’s decision to convict, COA distinguishes Appel’s proffered authority and affirms.
According to the trial testimony, police received multiple reports of a man trespassing through properties in Dunn County. (¶2). When police responded to the area in question, they observed Appel, who matched the description, walking on a public road. (¶3). Appel repeatedly refused requests to stop and talk to police. (¶4). Eventually, Appel was told that he was being detained. (¶5). Appel continued to walk away and appeared about to run. (Id.). When an officer tried to grab hold of his arm, he pulled away. (Id.).
On appeal, Appel argues “he did nothing to obstruct” the officer. (¶12). In support, he cites SCOW’s decision in State v. Hamilton for the proposition that “refusing to identify oneself is not, without more, enough to constitute obstruction.” (Id.). COA finds that authority distinguishable, as “Appel did not merely refuse to identify himself.” (¶13). Appel ignored numerous commands to stop, took a stance as if he was about to run away, and pulled away from the officer. (Id.). It is also significant to COA that Appel was a suspect in the officer’s trespassing investigation and was in the vicinity of that criminal activity when these acts occurred. (Id.). Accordingly, under the deferential standard of review used to assess sufficiency challenges, COA declines Appel’s invitation to reverse his conviction.
Moreover, COA also agrees that the circuit court appropriately excluded evidence regarding the officer’s state of mind during the interaction, as that is irrelevant to the crime at issue. (¶17).