STATE OF MISSOURI v. JEREMY RUIZ TOMASSINI (2026)

A jury found Jeremy Ruiz-Tomassini (“Defendant”) guilty of the class A misdemeanor of resisting arrest. See section 575.150, RSMo (2016) (eff. Jan. 1, 2017). In his sole point on appeal, Defendant contends that the circuit court erred in entering judgment and sentence for the foregoing offense because “there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [he] knew or reasonably should have known he was being arrested at the time physical force was used.” We disagree.

As is relevant to Defendant's sufficiency-of-the-evidence contention, section 575.150 requires as follows:

1. A person commits the crime of resisting or interfering with arrest, detention, or stop if he or she knows or reasonably should know that a law enforcement officer is making an arrest, or attempting to lawfully detain or stop an individual or vehicle, and for the purpose of preventing the officer from effecting the arrest, stop or detention, he or she:

(1) Resists the arrest, stop or detention of such person by using or threatening the use of violence or physical force or by fleeing from such officer[.]

(Emphasis added.)

As is also relevant to our review of said contention:

When reviewing a claim challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court must make a de novo determination whether the evidence is sufficient to permit a reasonable fact-finder to find the necessary facts beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court accepts as true all evidence tending to prove those facts and will draw all reasonable inferences in favor of finding those facts. This Court, however, may not supply missing evidence or give the state the benefit of unreasonable, speculative or forced inferences.

State v. Peters, 729 S.W.3d 243, 246 (Mo. banc 2026) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

The evidence in the instant case came from the testimony of several Branson police officers who were dispatched to an apartment to respond to a peace disturbance and noise complaint. Loud music and voices could be heard at the entrance to the apartment, and Officer Cody Lowery asked everyone inside the apartment to exit and provide identification because he believed, based on prior experience at this location, that minors might be consuming alcohol. Defendant was among the several individuals who exited, but he refused to provide identification as requested.

Officer Lowery decided to take Defendant into custody for violating a Branson municipal ordinance requiring someone to provide identification when lawfully detained and advised Defendant “to put his hands behind his back[.]” Defendant pulled away and Officer Lowery and another officer who had arrived to assist, Officer Johnathan Sigmin, attempted to take Defendant to the ground to control him but were unsuccessful as Defendant kept trying to stand up and pull away. During this struggle, Officer Lowery discharged his taser at Defendant twice. Defendant still resisted, prompting another officer at the scene, Officer Austin Williams, to assist by grabbing Defendant's arm. Eventually, Officer Lowery got ahold of Defendant's braided hair and pulled him to the ground, at which point officers handcuffed Defendant.

In the direct examination of Officer Lowery, the prosecutor asked him whether he told Defendant that he was under arrest. Officer Lowery responded that he “initially” told Defendant “to place his hands behind his back.” Officer Lowery then responded that “in the ensuing struggle [Defendant] was told he was under arrest and needed to comply and not to resist.” Officer Sigmin confirmed that Defendant was so apprised, testifying that, upon his arrival at the scene to assist, he “observed Officer Lowery tell [Defendant] that he was under arrest.” Officer Sigmin further testified that during the struggle with Defendant that ensued, “I continued to say ‘stop resisting arrest’ or ‘stop resisting.’ ”

In finding that Defendant's sole point is without merit, we are guided by this Court's opinion in State v. Dickerson, 499 S.W.3d 378 (Mo.App. 2016). In that case, what began as a consensual interview by several police officers of someone suspected of assault and armed criminal action, escalated into a physical altercation after one of the officers instructed the suspect to put his hands behind his back as the suspect began walking away from the officers. Id. at 379-81. At no point before or during the altercation did the officer inform the suspect that he was under arrest. Id. at 381. We observed that the suspect “and any other reasonable person may not have known that an arrest was imminent when initially told that the officers were just there to talk or that the officers just wanted to hear [the suspect]’s side of the story.” Id. Then in addressing the moment the suspect began walking away, we observed the following:

[The suspect] may not have known nor should he have known that he was under arrest even when the officer said he wanted [the suspect] to put his arms behind his back. It may have been a pure safety measure for the officers to request that a witness or a citizen keep their hands in view. Under calmer circumstances, [the suspect] may have thought he was free to go or asked if he was under arrest.

Id.

Nevertheless, we also looked to the remainder of the encounter and held:

Once it was clear that the conversations had come to an end and three officers got into a physical confrontation with [the suspect], however, [the suspect] was under arrest and had to know he was under arrest. It is clear from the recorded events that [the suspect] resisted at every step of the remaining confrontation where it had to be clear that he was under arrest. He tried to get his dog to attack the officers. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found that [the suspect] knew the officer was making an arrest as the officer was attempting to actually restrain or control [the suspect].

Id. at 381-82.

Here, Defendant highlights in his argument the fact that Officer Lowery “initially” only told Defendant “to place his hands behind his back” before their ensuing struggle. Yet, Defendant minimizes or ignores the sequence of events that followed, framing it as a “rapidly unfolding encounter” and acknowledging only that “he was taken to the ground.” This so-called “rapidly unfolding encounter,” however, involved multiple escalatory steps where one, two, and then three officers attempted to restrain Defendant, including by use of a taser, twice. Like Dickerson, Defendant resisted at every step of this confrontation. Unlike Dickerson, Officer Lowery even explicitly told Defendant that he was under arrest while the confrontation was ongoing. This evidence was more than enough for a rational trier of fact to find that Defendant knew Officer Lowery was making an arrest as Defendant resisted.

Defendant's sole point on appeal is denied, and the circuit court's judgment is affirmed.

BECKY J. WEST, J. – OPINION AUTHOR

JACK A. L. GOODMAN, J. – CONCURS BRYAN E. NICKELL, J. – CONCURS