SAGINAW COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT OVERTURNED MURDER CHARGES BECAUSE OF ERRORS BY THE TRIAL COURT JUDGE

In People v. Mitchell, a case arising out of the Saginaw County Circuit Court, the Court of Appeals reversed a defendant’s convictions due to lack of a specific jury instruction and insufficiency of evidence. The opinion was released for publication on June 6, 2013.

The defendant was convicted by jury of second-degree murder and carrying a weapon with unlawful intent. The case background is that there was a recurring argument over the victim owing the defendant five dollars. Testimony showed that the defendant banged on the victim’s apartment walls and doors and made threatening comments. The victim stated he planned to defend himself and physically beat the defendant if the harassment continued. In 2011, the victim’s body was discovered face down on the kitchen floor of his apartment. The body displayed injuries to the back, neck, and head, including a skull fracture plus three or four stab wounds on the neck. Some of the injuries were consistent with being hit with a baseball bat. The defendant’s face was scratched and his right eye was bruised. In addition, he had a swollen hand as well. He claimed he struck the victim in self-defense after he was attacked with a baseball bat.

During the trial, the defendant’s Saginaw County criminal defense attorney argued that the victim was the initial aggressor, and the beating occurred in the heat of the moment, so he requested a jury instruction for voluntary manslaughter. The court denied this due to lack of evidence of adequate provocation.

So What Happened On Appeal?

On appeal, the Court found that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to give the instruction. First, the defendant’s version of events was partially corroborated by police testimony. Therefore, the Court stated that, if believed, the evidence would support a determination of provocation. Next, the jury posed various questions during deliberations that indicated they wanted to consider a lesser charge than first or second degree murder. So the Court found it was more probable than not that a different outcome would have resulted if given the requested instruction. The Court found this error required reversal for the second-degree murder conviction and a new trial.

Regarding the weapons conviction, the Court considered the sufficiency of the evidence. First, the prosecution offered no evidence that the defendant owned the knife or brought it with him. However, the prosecution argued that the defendant did not need to bring a weapon to be convicted of the charge, asserting that he could be convicted if he picked up the baseball bat at the victim’s apartment and chose to wield it.

The Court focused on the operative phrase, “goes armed,” which is contained in the statute to indicate that the defendant needs to leave a place while armed with the intent to use the weapon unlawfully against another individual. Additionally, the Court noted that if the plaintiff’s statutory interpretation was accepted, every offense committed involving a qualifying weapon could be charged under this statute. Therefore, the Court found there was insufficient evidence to prove the second charge. So acquittal, not retrial, was the correct remedy.

The Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

This case illustrates the benefit of having an effective trail attorney creating appellate issues during the trial. It is often the case that trial judges make mistakes that need to be corrected by the Court of Appeals. This is very difficult in cases in which the trial attorney does not raise the issue first. The trial lawyers at The Kronzek Firm PLC routinely assist clients with trials and criminal appeals statewide.