Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
A jury convicted Steele of two counts of resisting an executive officer with force or violence, misdemeanor trespass, and three counts of threatening a public officer. Four counts concerned a December 13, 2024 confrontation at an Escondido shopping center; the other two concerned a January 1, 2025 arrest outside a gas station. The cases were consolidated, and the trial court placed Steele on two years of felony probation, including 281 days of custodial confinement, after striking on-bail enhancements.
The shopping-center evidence included officer testimony and body-worn-camera footage. Steele repeatedly returned to or crossed onto the property after being told to leave, threatened Officers Baechli and Bolton, and physically resisted handcuffing. An officer used a leg sweep while another held Steele's backpack and supported his body weight. Steele argued that the force was excessive, that he had already left the property, and that his threats were angry reactions rather than attempts to influence official duties.
Steele also challenged the joint trial and two treatment-related probation conditions. While the appeal was pending, he filed a habeas petition raising ineffective assistance concerning the gas-station threat count and Racial Justice Act claims. The court's separate order accepted the ineffective-assistance claim and reversed that conviction, while denying the Racial Justice Act claims without prejudice to refiling in superior court. That order made the corresponding appellate ineffective-assistance claim and the probation-condition challenges unnecessary to decide.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that substantial evidence supported the shopping-center convictions. On resisting an executive officer, a rational jury could find the leg sweep reasonable and necessary given Steele's preceding threats, active resistance, and the safety threat officers perceived. On trespass, footage permitted findings that his sidewalk departures were only momentary and that he repeatedly reentered the shopping center despite orders to leave. On the two threat convictions, the timing and circumstances supported an intent to stop the officers from removing him; the statute required an apparent, not present, ability to carry out the threats.
The court further held that consolidation was not an abuse of discretion. Evidence from both incidents was cross-admissible to prove intent because the encounters occurred weeks apart, involved similar orders and arguments about lawfulness or warrants, and included threats and resistance. The remaining severance factors also favored joinder. The joint trial did not produce gross unfairness: the prosecutor did not urge guilt in one case from guilt in the other, the evidence was independently substantial, and the jury received instructions addressing bias, limited-purpose evidence, and separate consideration of each count.
The disposition reversed count 6 as provided in the separate habeas order and affirmed the judgment in all other respects. The habeas order remanded for an opportunity to retry count 6, and the opinion explained that resentencing would be required at least on the remaining convictions. The court therefore did not decide the merits of the challenged probation conditions.
Key Takeaways
- A trespass arrest's relatively minor underlying offense did not prevent a jury from finding a leg sweep reasonable when the evidence also showed threats, active resistance, and safety concerns.
- Brief movement to a sidewalk did not compel a finding of compliance with leave orders where footage showed repeated reentry and continued presence at the property boundary.
- Threats made while officers were attempting an eviction could support an inference that Steele intended to influence their official duties.
- Similar evidence from the two incidents was cross-admissible on intent, and that cross-admissibility strongly supported the refusal to sever the cases.
- The opinion did not resolve the probation-condition objections because the related habeas reversal required resentencing and left open possible retrial of count 6.
Why It Matters
The decision applies deferential substantial-evidence review to intertwined disputes over police force, compliance with leave orders, and the intent behind threats. It treats the full encounter, rather than the trespass charge in isolation, as central to the reasonableness inquiry and relies on both testimony and body-worn-camera footage.
The severance analysis explains how recurring conduct in two close-in-time encounters can be relevant to intent rather than merely propensity. The opinion also separates the appellate judgment from the companion habeas relief, preserving the remaining convictions while leaving retrial, resentencing, and any renewed probation issues for further proceedings.