The State presented sufficient evidence that Ms. Terry’s actions, taken in concert, hampered Officer Jordan’s performance of his duties.
State v. Terry
First District Appellate Court
Hamilton County, Ohio
April 4, 2025
Why is this case important?
This Terry case provides the politely refusing to exit a lawfully stopped car and providing a false name is enough to sustain a conviction for Obstructing Official Business.
Background
Obstructing Official Business
Defendant-appellant Ms. Jada Terry appeals her conviction for obstructing official business. In the first of three assignments of error, Ms. Terry challenges the sufficiency and weight of the evidence supporting her conviction. Her second assignment of error levies a due process claim concerning the trial judge’s failure to disqualify himself from presiding over the proceedings. The third assignment of error addresses the court’s failure to afford Ms. Terry the right of allocution at sentencing. For reasons we explain in this opinion, we affirm the finding of guilt but reverse Ms. Terry’s sentence because she was not given an opportunity to speak before the trial court’s sentence was pronounced. We accordingly remand the matter to the trial court for resentencing.
Following a traffic stop on March 24, 2024, Ms. Terry was charged with obstructing official business in violation of O.R.C. §2921.31(A), a misdemeanor of the second degree. She elected to try her case to the trial court.
Officer Donald Jordan Body Camera Video
At trial, the State presented the testimony of Officer Donald Jordan of the Woodlawn Police Department, as well as footage from his body-worn camera. Officer Jordan was the State’s only witness, and Ms. Terry presented no evidence of her own. Thus, all facts surrounding the traffic stop are derived from Officer Jordan’s statements on the stand and his body-worn camera footage.
Excessive Speed Traffic Stop
Officer Jordan testified to observing a vehicle on Sheffield Road travelling in excess of the speed limit. Inside the car were a female driver, a male passenger, and children in the back seat. Officer Jordan used the vehicle’s license plate number to access the registration information, which returned to a person named Ms. Jada Terry. The registration included Ms. Terry’s name, date of birth, address, Social Security number, and photograph, as well as the make and model of the registered vehicle.
Jada Lies About Her Identity
After accessing this information, Officer Jordan initiated a traffic stop. The footage from Officer Jordan’s body-worn camera captured his encounter with the driver, who indicated that she was not in possession of her driver’s license. She instead identified herself to Officer Jordan as “Delilah Terry” and provided him with a date of birth that did not correspond to the date of birth for Ms. Jada Terry.
Delilah is Jada’s Sister
As Officer Jordan explained in his testimony, he returned to his cruiser and entered the name and birthdate that Ms. Terry provided into his computer. While the information did return to a Ms. Delilah Terry, Officer Jordan could tell from the photographs he accessed of both people that the driver was actually Jada and not Delilah. From this, Officer Jordan surmised that Ms. Terry had provided him with her sister’s information rather than her own.
Decision to Arrest
Because Ms. Terry provided false information, Officer Jordan conveyed his intent to arrest her to another officer who had arrived on scene. Officer Jordan then ran the information for Ms. Terry’s passenger before returning to the vehicle to arrest her.
Nearly three minutes elapsed between the officer first ordering Ms. Terry to get out of the car and the time she stepped out of the vehicle.
As reflected on the body-worn camera footage, Officer Jordan asked Ms. Terry to step out of the vehicle. She calmly refused, first asking why she had to step out. The officer repeated his order numerous times without explaining its basis to Ms. Terry. Ms. Terry repeatedly expressed her intent to comply if Officer Jordan would provide a reason for his order. Officer Jordan attempted to grab Ms. Terry’s arm to remove her from the car, but she pulled her arm away. Moments later, he was successful at securing her arm and held onto it while issuing additional commands to step out. Ms. Terry persisted in requesting an explanation. When Officer Jordan released her arm, Ms. Terry got out of the car. Nearly three minutes elapsed between the officer first ordering Ms. Terry to get out of the car and the time she stepped out of the vehicle.
She apologized for her actions and indicated her willingness to accept the consequences.
The body-worn camera footage reflects that Ms. Terry was cooperative once out of the vehicle. She admitted that she gave Officer Jordan her sister’s name because her driver’s license was suspended. She apologized for her actions and indicated her willingness to accept the consequences. She explained that she did not want to be arrested in front of her young children, one of whom she reported suffered from disabilities.
Guilty Verdict
After Officer Jordan’s testimony concluded, the trial court found Ms. Terry guilty as charged. The court imposed a suspended sentence of 90 days in jail and six months of community control. The sentence was stayed pending appeal.
Appeal – Conviction is Against Manifest Weight of the Evidence
Unwilling to Accept Consequences
In her first assignment of error, Ms. Terry contends that her conviction for obstructing official business was not supported by sufficient evidence that she engaged in an affirmative act or that her actions hampered or impeded Officer Jordan in performing his official duties. She further argues that her conviction was against the manifest weight of the evidence in this regard. We disagree.
Obstructing Official Business – O.R.C. §2921.31(A)
The offense of Obstructing Official Business is proscribed by O.R.C. §2921.31(A). The provision states that “[N]o person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.”
Affirmative Act
The failure to act will not suffice
An affirmative act is an essential element of the offense of obstructing official business under O.R.C. §2923.31(A). State v. Grice, 2009-Ohio-372, ¶ 9 (1st Dist.). The phrase “affirmative act” has been defined as “any conduct, physical or verbal, that hampers or impedes the officer in the performance of his or her duties.” State v. Carrion, 2023-Ohio-4386, ¶ 19 (1st Dist.). The failure to act will not suffice. Id., quoting S.J. at ¶ 24. As we have observed, generally speaking, the “[m]ere failure to obey an officer’s order does not give rise to obstruction.” State v. Carroll, 2005-Ohio- 4048, ¶ 14 (1st Dist.).
Totality of the Circumstances
In considering whether a person’s conduct constitutes an affirmative act under O.R.C. §2923.31(A), “[O]fficers may consider the totality of the events and need not point to a single act that rises to the level of obstruction.” In re M.H., 2021-Ohio-1041, ¶ 18 (1st Dist.), quoting Lyons v. Xenia, 417 F.3d 565, 574 (6th Cir. 2005). Even in isolation, one such act that can constitute an affirmative act in an obstruction of official business case is providing officers with false information. State v. Lazzaro, 1996- Ohio-397, syllabus. Taking physical action to avoid an officer’s attempt to effectuate an arrest, such as tucking one’s wrists to avoid the placement of handcuffs, can also satisfy the affirmative act requirement. See, e.g., Carrion at ¶ 19-20.
Ms. Terry ignores the totality of her conduct
Ms. Terry argues that she did not engage in an affirmative act because her conduct merely amounted to inaction. She contends that, upon being ordered by Officer Jordan to get out of her car, she simply refused. But Ms. Terry ignores the totality of her conduct, which included providing a false name and date of birth to the officer and physically pulling away from his attempt to forcibly remove her from her car. She also engaged in a three-minute-long conversation with him about his purpose in detaining her which, while largely polite in tone, still went beyond merely declining to step out of the vehicle.
[S]he provided false information to a police officer, pulled away from his physical attempt to restrain her, and engaged in an approximately three-minute verbal dialogue with him that surpassed the simple refusal to obey a command
We therefore hold that the totality of Ms. Terry’s conduct constituted an affirmative act for which the State presented sufficient evidence at trial. And we reject Ms. Terry’s manifest weight challenge for similar reasons. Ms. Terry does not identify any evidence against which we should weigh the evidence of her conduct presented by the State. Because the State proved that she provided false information to a police officer, pulled away from his physical attempt to restrain her, and engaged in an approximately three-minute verbal dialogue with him that surpassed the simple refusal to obey a command, her obstructing official business conviction was not against the manifest weight of the evidence on this element.
Hamper or Impede
“Substantial stoppage” is not denoted by any particular period of time
Ms. Terry next challenges the weight and sufficiency of the evidence with regard to whether she hampered or impeded Officer Jordan in the performance of his official duties. An act hampers or impedes a law enforcement officer when it results in a “substantial stoppage” of the officer’s progress. In re R.B., 2021-Ohio-3749, ¶ 18 (1st Dist.). “Substantial stoppage” is not denoted by any particular period of time. Id. at ¶ 19. Rather, it contemplates a delay that occurs because of the defendant’s act. Id., quoting Grice, 2009-Ohio-372, at ¶ 12 (1st Dist.).
When Ms. Terry pulled away from Officer Jordan and engaged him in a lengthy verbal back-and-forth, she delayed his ability to effectuate that arrest.
The State presented sufficient evidence that Ms. Terry’s actions, taken in concert, hampered Officer Jordan’s performance of his duties. Officer Jordan’s body-worn camera footage reveals that he required additional time to compare the false information Ms. Terry provided against her actual name and photograph. He also communicated to his fellow officer that he planned to arrest Ms. Terry, rather than send her on her way with a ticket, because of her decision to provide a false name and birthdate. When Ms. Terry pulled away from Officer Jordan and engaged him in a lengthy verbal back-and-forth, she delayed his ability to effectuate that arrest. Taken together, these acts sufficiently hampered and impeded Officer Jordan in the performance of his duties to constitute obstructing official business. See Carrion, 2023-Ohio-4386, at ¶ 19 (1st Dist.); State v. Stancato, 2024-Ohio-2632, ¶ 20 (5th Dist.) (defendant’s argumentative and evasive behavior combined with his refusal to exit vehicle were overt acts that stalled and escalated the investigation in a manner which supported conviction).
The manifest weight of the evidence also supports Ms. Terry’s conviction with regard to the hamper-or-impede element. This is not a case where the trier of fact clearly lost its way in convicting Ms. Terry.
Ms. Terry had two additional appeals: the impartiality of the trial court judge and the right of allocution. Both of those appeals are not evaluated in this article.
Conclusion and Holding
The trial court’s finding of guilt was supported by sufficient, credible evidence, and the record does not establish that Ms. Terry was denied due process as a result of the trial judge’s failure to remove himself from the case. Accordingly, her first and second assignments of error are overruled. Because Ms. Terry was denied her right of allocution, her third assignment of error is sustained, the sentence is reversed, and the matter is remanded for resentencing.
Information for this article was obtained from State v. Terry, 2025 – Ohio – 1195.
State v. Terry, 2025 – Ohio – 1195 was issued by the First District Appellate Court on April 4, 2025 and is binding in Hamilton County, Ohio.
Lessons Learned:
- Obstructing Official Business O.R.C. §2921.31(A) “[N]o person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official’s official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official’s lawful duties.” A successful prosecution for Obstructing Official Business includes an ‘affirmative act’. In this case the court viewed Ms. Terry’s actions in total as it opined “Ms. Terry ignores the totality of her conduct, which included providing a false name and date of birth to the officer and physically pulling away from his attempt to forcibly remove her from her car.”. These actions were instrumental in the First District Appellate Court finding Ms. Terry’s conduct in violation of Obstructing Official Business.
- Can Being Polite Override the Criminal Element of an Affirmative Act? The court explained “She also engaged in a three-minute-long conversation with him about his purpose in detaining her which, while largely polite in tone, still went beyond merely declining to step out of the vehicle.”. The mere fact that Ms. Terry repeatedly failed to follow lawful orders was enough to sustain her conviction for Obstructing Official Business.
- Substantial Stoppage – Obstructing Official Business requires a person to hamper or impede a public official’s lawful duties. However, the stoppage can be ‘substantial’ without a minimum amount of time. As the court opined “Substantial stoppage” is not denoted by any particular period of time.”. In other words, the Fourth Amendment has no timeclock.
- Pre-Sent Arms! Woodlawn Police Officer Donald Jordan should be highly commended for his arrest of Ms. Terry. Well done!
Does your agency train on Obstructing Official Business?
Don’t fail your training.
Don’t let your training fail you!
Be safe, smart and objectively reasonable!