State v. Reisinger

1

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

No. 119,074


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

STATE OF KANSAS,
Appellee,

v.

AUSTIN DEAN REISINGER,
Appellant.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appeal from Shawnee District Court; RONALD E. WURTZ, judge pro tem. Opinion filed April 19,
2019. Affirmed.

Gerald E. Wells, of Jerry Wells Attorney-at-Law, of Lawrence, for appellant.

Natalie Chalmers, assistant solicitor general, and Derek Schmidt, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before GREEN, P.J., SCHROEDER, J., and STUTZMAN, S.J.

PER CURIAM: After a bench trial, the trial court convicted Austin Dean Reisinger
of interference with law enforcement. Reisinger appeals, arguing that the State introduced
insufficient evidence to support his conviction. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.

On October 4, 2017, Officer Wyatt McKay of the Topeka Police Department
responded to a call for a domestic disturbance at the North Topeka Kwik Shop. At the
Kwik Shop, Officer McKay learned that Reisinger, who was no longer at the store, was
the alleged aggressor of the domestic disturbance. Officer McKay was familiar with
2

Reisinger from prior interactions with him. Officer McKay next ran Reisinger's name and
found he had a possible warrant from the City of Topeka. Officer McKay then went to
Reisinger's home to search for him.

At Reisinger's home, Officer McKay first encountered Reisinger's stepmother,
who declined to help find Reisinger. Officer McKay next encountered Reisinger's
stepfather, who also lived in the home. Reisinger's stepfather agreed to help the police
find Reisinger. Officer McKay, other police officers, and Reisinger's stepfather
proceeded to search for Reisinger in detached garages on the property.

While searching a garage, Officer McKay heard a chain-link fence rattle, "as if it
had been hit." Officer McKay ran to the fence, looked west, and saw Reisinger jump the
fence, heading northbound. Officer McKay immediately recognized Reisinger. Officer
McKay then jumped a fence at the front of the home to pursue Reisinger. The pursuit
lasted from three to five minutes and required Officer McKay to jump several fences and
run through several neighbors' yards as he followed Reisinger. At one point, Officer
McKay lost sight of Reisinger, but a neighbor waved him down and told him that
Reisinger had just run into his house. The neighbor opened his back door to show Officer
McKay that Reisinger was inside his house; the neighbor asked if Reisinger was the man
police were searching for and Officer McKay responded that he was.

At the back door of the neighbor's home, Officer McKay asked Reisinger to come
to him. Reisinger did not obey; Officer McKay apprehended Reisinger by grabbing him,
pulling him outside, and then arresting him.

On October 6, 2017, the State charged Reisinger with battery, assault, and
interference with law enforcement, all misdemeanors. The case proceeded to a bench
trial. At trial, the State dropped the assault and battery charges and prosecuted only the
interference with law enforcement charge.
3


Officer McKay testified on behalf of the State. He testified about the details of the
pursuit and arrest and stated that the pursuit substantially hindered or increased the
burden on him while he performed his official duty. He also testified that he believed that
when the pursuit started, Reisinger "should have known that the individual pursuing him
was an officer." On cross-examination, he conceded that he did not recall whether he
called out to Reisinger or identified himself as a police officer during the pursuit and said
that his bodycam footage does not clarify the issue.

Reisinger testified on his own behalf. He testified that he never heard Officer
McKay call his name or tell him to stop and that he would have stopped had he heard a
command to do so. He said he did not know that someone was chasing him when he ran
out of his yard. On cross-examination, he conceded that while he was at his house, he
knew that his younger brother called the police. He said that he did not know that his
younger sister also called the police that day. He said he did not recall jumping three or
four fences while running to his neighbor's house.

In closing, Reisinger argued that he was not guilty since he did not know the
police were chasing him because the police did not call out to him. Thus, he argued, "he
did not hinder because he was not aware that the police were chasing him."

The trial court found Reisinger guilty of misdemeanor interference with law
enforcement. The trial court explained its decision, stating it did not find Reisinger's
claim that he did not know Officer McKay was chasing him to be credible. The trial court
explained that the evidence showed Reisinger engaged in "furtive behavior, evasive
behavior," and "knew he was fleeing from the police officers, especially since he knew
the police officers had been called by his brother." The trial court sentenced Reisinger to
six months of probation with an underlying sentence of three months in jail.

4

Did the State Introduce Sufficient Evidence to Support Reisinger's Conviction?

"'When the sufficiency of evidence is challenged in a criminal case, this court
reviews the evidence in a light most favorable to the State to determine whether a rational
fact-finder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.' [Citation
omitted.]" State v. Rosa, 304 Kan. 429, 432-33, 371 P.3d 915 (2016). When conducting
sufficiency of the evidence review, this court does not "reweigh evidence, resolve
evidentiary conflicts, or make witness credibility determinations." State v. Chandler, 307
Kan. 657, 668, 414 P.3d 713 (2018).

Reisinger was convicted for interference with law enforcement under K.S.A. 2017
Supp. 21-5904(a)(3). The applicable subsection defines interference with law
enforcement as "knowingly obstructing, resisting or opposing any person authorized by
law to serve process in the service or execution or in the attempt to serve or execute any
writ, warrant, process or order of a court, or in the discharge of any official duty." K.S.A.
2017 Supp. 21-5904(a)(3).

On appeal, Reisinger argues that the State introduced insufficient evidence to
support his conviction. Much like he argued below, Reisinger claims that there is
insufficient evidence to support his conviction because Officer McKay admitted he did
not recall whether he called out to Reisinger or told him to stop, and Reisinger denied
that Officer McKay called out to him. Specifically, he argues that "there is no evidence
presented that [he] knowingly obstructed or resisted Officer McKay."

The State, on the other hand, argues that sufficient evidence supports Reisinger's
conviction because circumstantial evidence supports a finding that Reisinger knew
Officer McKay was pursuing him. The State is correct.

5

A "conviction of even the gravest offense may be sustained by circumstantial
evidence. [Citation omitted.]" State v. Logsdon, 304 Kan. 3, 25, 371 P.3d 836 (2016).
Further, the State can, and often does, rely on circumstantial evidence to prove a
defendant's mental state. State v. Thach, 305 Kan. 72, 83-84, 378 P.3d 522 (2016). At
trial, the fact-finder is entitled to make reasonable inferences based on circumstantial
evidence. See State v. Kettler, 299 Kan. 448, 470, 325 P.3d 1075 (2014).

Here, the trial court heard testimony that Reisinger had reason to know police
were coming to his home because he admitted he knew that his brother had called the
police. The trial court also heard testimony from Officer McKay that after he arrived at
Reisinger's house, he first contacted Reisinger's stepmother and next he contacted his
stepfather. The trial court heard Officer McKay's testimony that while he and others
searched for Reisinger, he heard a fence rattle as Reisinger fled the property by jumping a
fence. The trial court heard Officer McKay's testimony that while fleeing, Reisinger
jumped multiple fences, ran through several yards, and eventually hid in a neighbor's
house while officers searched for him. The trial court also heard Officer McKay's
testimony that, based on the ongoing search and Reisinger's dash into a neighbor's house,
the neighbor was able to discern that police were likely looking for Reisinger because he
asked the police if Reisinger was the man they were searching for.

In light of the evidence about Reisinger's manner and behavior while fleeing, the
trial court expressly discredited his claim that he did not know police were looking for
him and that he was simply running to his neighbor's house. This court cannot reweigh
evidence when conducting sufficiency of the evidence review. Chandler, 307 Kan. at
668. Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we determine that a
reasonable fact-finder could conclude that Reisinger understood police were looking for
him and fled to avoid them. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.