Resisting Arrest Not Guilty in Lubbock

Case Outcome
Not Guilty Verdict in Lubbock, Texas
Resisting Arrest Jury Trial

Dunham & Jones attorneys Chase Stewart and Kordell Tindle secured a Not Guilty verdict in a resisting arrest jury trial in Lubbock, Texas in 2025. The case was tried before a Lubbock County jury and concluded with a swift acquittal after only several minutes of deliberation.

The charge stemmed from a brief encounter between law enforcement and an older woman who was stopped in the parking lot of a medical clinic. The State pursued a conviction despite the absence of evidence showing force, violence, or physical resistance. The jury rejected that position and returned a clear Not Guilty verdict.

This result reinforces a basic principle of Texas criminal law. Being upset, frustrated, or verbally confrontational does not amount to a crime.

The Legal Challenge
Resisting Arrest Allegation Without Proof of Force

The State charged the client with resisting arrest, a charge that requires proof of force used against an officer. From the outset, the case lacked that element. The arresting officer admitted under oath that the client was belligerent but did not use force.

Despite this admission, the prosecution continued forward. The defense filed a motion to quash the charging instrument based on the State’s failure to allege how force was supposedly used. That motion was denied. The defense later requested a directed verdict after the officer confirmed there was no physical resistance. That request was also denied.

The client was an older woman who had just returned a medical sample for cancer testing. She was stopped in a clinic parking lot, a setting that added stress and confusion. The encounter escalated due to the officer’s conduct, not the client’s actions.

The State offered probation. The defense requested dismissal. The case went to trial.

Defense Strategy
Law Defined by Evidence Not Emotion

Chase Stewart and Kordell Tindle focused the jury on what the law actually requires. Resisting arrest in Texas is not about tone, attitude, or words. It requires force. The defense reminded jurors that the officer himself admitted the client had not used any.

The defense emphasized the difference between speech and conduct. Being upset during a medical moment is not criminal behavior. The jury was asked to decide whether the State proved every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. They were also asked to consider whether the prosecution had stretched the law beyond its limits.

Cross examination exposed the lack of physical evidence. No video showed resistance. No testimony described force. No report documented violence. The case rested on an officer’s reaction to criticism, not on criminal conduct.

Jury Verdict
Not Guilty After Brief Deliberation

After closing arguments, the jury retired to deliberate. Within minutes, they returned with a unanimous Not Guilty verdict.

The speed of the decision reflected the weakness of the charge. The jury followed the law as written and refused to criminalize behavior that did not meet the statutory definition.

What This Means for Resisting Arrest Cases in Texas

This verdict sends a clear message. Resisting arrest charges require proof of force. Verbal disagreement is not a crime. Police authority does not override statutory limits.

When courts deny motions that should resolve a case, juries remain the final safeguard. This Lubbock verdict shows that jurors are willing to hold the State to its burden when the facts do not support the charge.

Why Clients Choose Dunham & Jones

Dunham & Jones prepares cases for trial from the beginning. Our defense attorneys challenge overcharging, enforce statutory requirements, and present clear arguments to juries. We do not rely on assumptions or shortcuts.

In Lubbock and across Texas, Dunham & Jones defends clients against charges that should never result in convictions. When the law is applied correctly, the truth matters.