## Facts

- Lt. Riley, a Stockton police officer in uniform, investigated a prowler report describing a male Black suspect about six feet tall wearing a white shirt and tan trousers.
- Riley saw Albert Allen Curtis in the area and stopped him because he generally matched the description.
- Riley told Curtis he was under arrest and reached for his arm; Curtis pulled back and a violent struggle followed, injuring both men, until other officers helped subdue Curtis.
- Curtis was acquitted of burglary but convicted of felony battery on a peace officer under Penal Code § 243 based on force used during the arrest.
- At trial, Curtis argued the arrest lacked probable cause and that any resistance was justified because the arrest was unlawful and/or the officer used excessive force.
- The jury was instructed in a manner suggesting Curtis had a statutory duty under Penal Code § 834a not to use force to resist once he knew he was being arrested by a peace officer.

## Issues

1. Whether Penal Code § 834a eliminated the common-law right to use reasonable force to resist an unlawful arrest or excessive force in making an arrest.
2. Whether felony battery on a peace officer under Penal Code § 243 requires proof the officer was lawfully “engaged in the performance of his duties.”
3. Whether jury instructions permitting conviction without requiring a finding of lawful performance of duties were prejudicial error.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California reversed the conviction.
- The court held § 834a did not clearly abolish all justified resistance to an unlawful arrest or excessive force.
- The court held § 243’s requirement that the officer be “engaged in the performance of his duties” includes lawful performance; the prosecution must prove the officer acted within legal authority.
- Because the instructions allowed conviction without requiring the jury to find the officer was lawfully performing his duties, the verdict could not stand.

## Legal Principles

- Statutes are not read to abrogate the common law absent clear legislative intent; ambiguity is resolved against sweeping displacement.
- Penal Code § 834a imposes a duty to refrain from using force or a weapon to resist when a person knows or should know the arrester is a peace officer, but it does not create an absolute duty to submit regardless of the arrest’s legality or the officer’s use of excessive force.
- For felony battery on a peace officer under Penal Code § 243, the prosecution must prove the officer was “engaged in the performance of his duties,” which requires lawful conduct (including a lawful arrest and non-excessive force).
- Jury instructions that remove the lawfulness element from § 243, or that effectively foreclose consideration of justified resistance, constitute prejudicial error requiring reversal.

## Conclusion

The conviction was reversed because felony battery on a peace officer requires proof that the officer was lawfully performing official duties, and the jury was instructed in a way that permitted conviction without that required finding while treating § 834a as an absolute bar to resistance.


People v. Curtis, 70 Cal. 2d 347, 450 P.2d 33 (Cal. 1969)