Local man gets probation and withheld judgment after jury find him guilty of assaulting officers
Published at | Updated at
IDAHO FALLS — An Idaho Falls man was granted a withheld judgment after a jury found him guilty of punching and obstructing officers in June.
Christian James Markmiller, 33, was found guilty after a two-day trial in January of felony battery upon certain personnel and misdemeanor resisting or obstructing arrest.
District Judge Brendon Taylor ordered that Markmiller be given a withheld judgment and to serve four years of probation for the felony and two years of probation for the misdemeanor. These will run concurrently, and he was credited with 74 days of jail time.
If he completes probation, the charges will be dropped from his record.
Taylor also gave Markmiller 180 days of discretionary time to be used at his probation officer’s discretion. He will also serve 100 hours of community service and must pay $1,600 in fines and fees.
Markmiller was found guilty on Jan. 27 after a jury agreed that he had punched an officer who was performing a traffic stop outside of the O’Brady’s Family Restaurant on June 14.
He had walked up to the traffic stop and began filming with his phone. Officers reported that he was circling around the stop and yelling derogatory remarks at them.
Officers told Markmiller that he was OK to film them, but needed to stay away.
The reporting officer stated Markmiller got between 10 and 15 feet from another officer when that officer told the man to step back or he’d be taken into custody. The man was reported to have taken another step toward the officer and struck the officer with his fist.
‘No contrition, no accountability and no self-blame’
During the state’s portion of the sentencing, Bonneville County Deputy Prosecutor Patsy Tucker told the court her main concern about Markmiller was that he refused to acknowledge he had done anything wrong.
“The (pre-sentence investigation) reflects no contrition, no accountability and no self-blame,” Tucker said.
Regarding this, she said that due to the circumstances of the case, the worry was his conduct towards law enforcement.
Given his stance on refusing to take action, Tucker said granting a withheld judgment is risky.
Recalling the incident that resulted in Markmiller’s arrest, officers had asked the man to step back, and, in his view, this was an illegal order.
She said that Markmiller has a deep-seated anger towards law enforcement and that the presentence investigation lists him at a moderate level of reoffending.
“He believes that his future interactions with the police could potentially end in a fatality,” Tucker said. “He likened his experience on probation, if he is granted probation by the court, to living in North Korea.”
Despite his claims of probation, Tucker said Markmiller has told the state he was willing to work with probation. She said the state believes probation would aid Markmiller.
However, the state recommended a fixed three-year prison term and a two-year indeterminate term, with a five-year probationary period.
‘Strong opinions are not the same as future dangers’
Markmiller’s attorney, Eric Wolfe, agreed with the state’s position that probation should be the outcome for his client.
However, he argued that while Markmiller’s stance hadn’t changed to one that the state would be more amenable to, it is his right to hold those opinions.
“My client has acknowledged his conduct. His behavior, struck any officer, was wrong, pointless and a mistake,” Wolfe said. “He acknowledged his own conduct was wrong, and your honor, that’s accountability.”
From this, Wolfe asked that the court not focus on Markmiller’s views on law enforcement and government, but rather on the conduct that had occurred. He said this was a single incident in which his client had a lapse in judgment.
Outside of this incident, Wolfe said that Markmiller has strong family support, holds a bachelor’s degree and has no prior record.
“Some of the language he gives is clearly strong, even, or inappropriate, maybe,” Wolfe said. “Strong opinions are not the same as future danger.”
While he recommended probation, the length would be a two-and-a-half-year period with a withheld judgment.
Markmiller’s statement
Markmiller was given the opportunity to give a statement, during which he apologized for what he said to the officers.
“Obviously, cursing and swearing at them aren’t going to accomplish anything in terms of getting them to stop searching for that mom and her kids’ vehicle. I also wanted to say that I’m never going to stop and film the police again,” Markmiller said.
Withheld judgment sentence
Before handing down his sentence to Markmiller, Taylor said he had a right to freedom of speech, despite the speech being found offensive.
However, his speech was not the issue in this case. It was when his interaction with the police turned physical.
“I just want to make it clear that your viewpoints on whether law enforcement is behaving appropriately, and your criticisms, are not something that I’m going to punish you harder for in sentencing,” Taylor said.
He commended Markmiller, stating that he has had no prior convictions and numerous letters had been sent in his favor.
Taylor told Markmiller that he would place him on probation for four years and withhold judgment.
The reasoning behind this sentencing is that it allows the court to see how Markmiller is doing and, in the event of any issues, there is time to address them. If Markmiller does a good job on probation, he can be let off early.
One item that Taylor made clear to Markmiller during the sentencing was the decision to withhold judgment.
Due to Markmiller’s criminal history, he qualifies for withheld judgment despite the state’s opposition to it. However, if any violations occur during his probation, this case will proceed to sentencing.