Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 13, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130435 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 130435 

 COA: 257288 
 Wayne CC: 00-002335

AZIZUL ISLAM,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 6, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

MARKMAN, J., concurs and states as follows: 

I concur in the Court’s order denying leave to appeal in this case. Although the 

planting of a bloody hacksaw in defendant’s basement by the dog handler constituted an 

effort to taint evidence, defendant failed to demonstrate that it is more probable than not 

that this, in fact, affected the outcome of his trial. 

The impact of the planted evidence was limited because the jury never heard about 

any bloody hacksaw blade. Rather, the jury merely heard about a broken hacksaw blade 

found in an area where the detection dog alerted, as well as testimony about several other 

saws. The trial court, however, stated three times that there were no saws with the 

victim’s blood or remains on them and that each of the saws discovered was irrelevant as 

evidence. The expert witness also limited the type of saw used in committing the murder 

to a dovetail carpenter’s saw, rather than a hacksaw. Finally, the prosecutor never 

mentioned the planted hacksaw blade to the jury. 

In addition, there was abundant, untainted other evidence of defendant’s guilt. 

The victim’s blood was found underneath a coat of fresh paint on defendant’s basement 

floor, on the paint roller, mop, vacuum cleaner, carpet, boots, and sink pump. The 

defense stipulated that it was the victim’s blood, and the stipulation was consistent with 
 _________________________________________ 

 

2 

an expert’s testimony. Paint chips consistent with both the new paint and old paint on 

defendant’s basement floor were found in the victim’s remains. The fact that defendant 

dismembered the victim and freshly painted the basement floor are further indicators of a 

cover-up. 

The timing of the murder was also such that it fit well with defendant’s clear 

motive to kill the victim, his wife. The victim, who was involved with another man, had 

returned to Michigan to finalize her divorce. Shortly before her disappearance, the victim 

told independent witnesses that she feared defendant would kill her, and she would try to 

get an earlier flight to London. The victim’s boyfriend testified that defendant and the 

victim had an argument when defendant caught her talking to him on the phone, and their 

conversation ended abruptly. The victim went missing very shortly after going to sleep 

in defendant’s home, leaving her watch and toothbrush behind. 

Defendant also was circumstantially tied to the disposal of the victim’s body. He 

requested a neighbor’s assistance to load a very heavy garbage can into a van he rented, 

which had a plastic sheet covering the backseat and the floor. On the day he rented the 

van, a man who looked like defendant and drove a van similar to the rented van was seen 

standing in a field in the Toledo area, near the property where the victim’s torso was later 

found. 

Defendant also tied himself to the crime with the statements he gave to the police, 

which expressed remorse and admitted some level of participation in the death. 

Defendant made inconsistent statements about his reasons for renting the van used to 

transport the victim’s remains. He told the neighbor who helped him load the trash can 

into the van that he was taking it to a Christmas party, he told the van rental company he 

was picking up relatives from the airport, and he told the police that he was checking the 

van to see if luggage would fit for an upcoming trip to Washington, D.C. Defendant 

ultimately made his family trip in his Mazda sedan. However, the van was driven 213 

miles, inconsistent with all of these explanations but consistent with a trip to Toledo to 

dispose of the victim’s torso. 

Thus, even absent the tainted evidence, the remaining evidence here supports the 

verdict. Because the admission of the planted evidence did not eventually lead to a 

miscarriage of justice, and because defendant was not actually prejudiced by such 

evidence, the error, in my judgment, was harmless. 

d0410 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 13, 2007 

Clerk