Opinion ID: 4192155
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the entire cause

Text: As acknowledged by both the panel and the majority, the defendant’s trial for the 30-year-old murder of Andrew “Melvin” Weathers was exceptional for what it lacked. Though a warrant for the defendant’s arrest was issued within a few months of the crime in 1983, the case went cold after initial efforts to locate the defendant failed—and only got colder as the years progressed. 3 By the time of the defendant’s trial in 2013, the original case file had been completely lost, along with any reports, witness statements, or other evidence it might have contained. 4 Gone too were most officers who had been involved in the original investigation 5 as well as Louise Kountz, who had died a few years before the trial and was the only conceivable link between the defendant and the crime. 6 As the majority says, these circumstances certainly posed “hurdles” in the case. 3 As the majority notes, a number of circumstances seemingly contributed to this state of affairs, including the defendant’s move to another state, the shuttering of the police department originally in charge of the investigation, and the absence of the arrest warrant from the Law Enforcement Information Network. 4 A copy of the original arrest warrant, it seems, survived; it was mentioned at trial, but not entered into evidence and thus not submitted to the jury. 5 One such officer testified at trial, but as the majority notes, he could recall little about the evidence collected beyond that the murder weapon had been tested for fingerprints and the prints proved unusable. Nonetheless, and without further substantiation or explanation, the officer averred that he did not “ever receive any lab results, additional evidence, or any information that caused [him] to change [his] mind about this defendant being the right person” to “charge[] with this murder”—and even suggested in passing that the evidence “just strengthened” that impression. Defense counsel raised no objection to this testimony, and the defendant did not challenge it on appeal. 6 As the majority notes, Melvin was related to the Kountz family and was living in Louise’s house (along with her daughters and another man) at the time of the murder. The defendant and Louise had begun dating roughly four to five years before the murder; the defendant had lived in the house with Louise and her daughters during that time, 7 Whether moreso for the prosecution or for the defendant, however, I don’t think it’s possible to say. Whatever inculpatory or exculpatory information these now-gone sources may have held, neither the parties nor the jurors would have the benefit of knowing. They all would need to look elsewhere for proof of the defendant’s guilt.
For the prosecution, this meant leaning heavily on Louise’s daughters, Melissa Kountz and Kimberly Stokes, 7 to reconstruct the events of that December night in 1983 when Melvin was murdered (and to place the defendant within them). At the time of the murder, Melissa and Kimberly were 13 and 16 years old, respectively. Per their testimony, they were both in the house when the murder occurred, and they both remembered seeing, through the darkness, a shadow cast by the perpetrator that struck them as roughly the same shape and size as the defendant. 8 Both also recalled running which overlapped to some extent with Melvin’s stay in the house. The defendant, however, had moved out of the house a number of months before the murder, after Louise had ended their relationship. 7 Melissa and Kimberly were Louise’s children from a prior marriage, which ended shortly before she began dating the defendant—though it seems Louise continued to go by her married name after the divorce. Louise’s prior husband had been Melissa’s biological father, and Kimberly’s adoptive one for all but the first year of her life. According to the defendant, Louise had left the girls’ father for him. The defendant then lived with Louise and the girls for roughly four or five years before moving out at Louise’s behest sometime in the summer of 1983. 8 In her 2012 statement to police, however, Kimberly was seemingly less certain about the source of this shadow, saying that she did not remember seeing the defendant in the house on the night in question. Also missing from both Melissa’s and Kimberly’s pretrial accounts was any mention of the apparent source of light that permitted the shadow to be cast in the otherwise dark house—a detail both of them offered for the first time in their trial testimony. In any event, according to their trial testimony, Melissa and 8 out of their house right afterward and to their neighbors’ to call the police; according to the neighbors’ ensuing testimony, one of the girls blurted out that the defendant had killed Melvin (though one neighbor thought Melissa had said as much, whereas the other thought it had been Kimberly). 9 Lastly, both recounted a phone call with the defendant roughly a month or two before the murder, in which he blamed Melvin for the demise of his relationship with Louise and vowed to “get” Melvin. Why the defendant might have blamed Melvin—let alone why he might have blamed him so intensely as to plot and carry out his murder—neither they, nor anyone else at trial, could say. Kimberly had nothing more to offer regarding who the perpetrator of this crime might be. The remainder of what the jury heard on that score—all the details that were offered to lend some definition to the shadow in the house—came solely from Melissa: from the manner in which the perpetrator broke into the house and obtained the murder weapon; 10 to the odor of stale, Kool-brand cigarettes she smelled on him (which she Kimberly noticed this shadow when they were hurrying down the stairs right behind the murderer, who himself was rushing and stumbling. They were in this highly precarious position, they testified, because they had been told to go downstairs and across the street to tell the neighbors to call the police—despite the fact that the murderer had just headed downstairs and there apparently were still-functional rotary phones safely located in the house upstairs. 9 According to one of the neighbors, however, and in apparent tension with the daughters’ account of their immediate flight from the scene, police had already arrived at Louise’s house by the time the two girls reached her doorstep. Further confusing matters, Kimberly had originally told police during their 2012 investigation that it was Louise who had called the police after they “all” had gone over to the neighbors’ house. 10 While this testimony was offered to suggest, as the majority notes, that the perpetrator was familiar with the house, the testimony did not indicate any familiarity unique to the defendant or beyond that which could have been gained by the various other individuals 9 associated with the defendant); 11 to the pair of the defendant’s shoes, with a sponge taped to one their soles, which apparently materialized in the house after the killing. 12 And the jury also learned two other things from Melissa: that she hated the defendant at the time of the murder for his treatment of her and her mother; 13 and that she set in motion the events that led to his trial some 30 years later, contacting the police in 2012, seemingly out of the blue, to inquire about the status of the (by then, very cold) case. 14 who visited or stayed in the house over the years (or through speaking with any one of them). 11 Melissa said she smelled this odor at the same time as she glimpsed the shadow of the perpetrator. Kimberly, who was standing right by Melissa at that time (and who had been living with the defendant for just as long as Melissa), did not remember any such smell on the night of the murder. Nor did she, or anyone else, testify to the defendant having, at the relevant time, the distinctive smell Melissa attributed to both him and the perpetrator. And while another witness who was not present that night testified that he generally remembered the defendant having a “weird odor . . . [l]ike, you know how some people don’t wash a lot and it’s like coming through their pores,” he suggested no association between that odor and cigarettes and couldn’t remember if the defendant smoked. 12 According to Melissa, she found these shoes in the downstairs dining room, neatly arranged with their heels against the wall; she had not noticed them there the night before. She did not speculate as to why, if the defendant wore these shoes to commit the crime, he would have stopped mid-flight, after rushing and stumbling down the stairs, to remove and arrange them before proceeding out of the house into the winter’s night, seemingly unshod. 13 Kimberly, for her part, denied that she hated the defendant at the time of the murder, but said that she “disliked his ways” and that his treatment of her mother “made [her] angry.” 14 Melissa testified that she had contacted police about the case on one prior occasion, sometime between 2003 and 2006, after seeing one of the defendant’s relatives—but the officer she spoke with then was not “helpful.” 10 From these accounts, the jurors learned that Melissa and Kimberly believed the defendant killed Melvin—now and, per their testimony, then. Even if the jurors were to credit this belief, it left ample room for doubt. The prosecution thus focused on proving something else: that the defendant persistently and violently abused and harassed Louise. As the majority notes, the prosecution very nearly wasn’t permitted to do so. In a pretrial ruling, the trial court had deemed such evidence inadmissible under MRE 403 because it was unfairly prejudicial to the defendant. The prosecution appealed, however, and successfully secured an order from the Court of Appeals peremptorily reversing that determination. People v Lyles, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered January 7, 2013 (Docket No. 313665). And with this appellate blessing in hand, the prosecution turned the defendant’s abuse of Louise into the overriding theme of his trial for murdering Melvin. 15 15 Before trial, the prosecution had moved to admit evidence regarding the defendant’s abuse of Louise under MRE 404(b) or MCL 768.27b (pertaining to “defendant’s commission of other acts of domestic violence”)—the latter of which, it bears noting, did not become available as a potential basis for admitting this evidence until 2006. See MCL 768.27b(6). The parties disputed whether the instant murder charge was an “offense involving domestic violence” such that it would fall within the scope of MCL 768.27b (thereby opening the door for the evidence of Louise’s abuse to be admitted under that rule). In its ruling, the trial court did not expressly decide that threshold question, instead concluding that the evidence was inadmissible under either the statute or MRE 404(b) because, per MRE 403, its “prejudicial [effect] . . . substantially outweigh[ed] any demonstrated relevan[ce]” it had to the charged offense. The court further noted, with respect to MRE 404(b), that the character inference raised by the evidence weighed against its admissibility. In peremptorily reversing this ruling, the order of the Court of Appeals did not address whether the prosecution’s offered evidence passed threshold admissibility standards under either MCL 768.27b or MRE 404(b), but it concluded that the trial court had “failed to make two distinct inquiries under the balancing test of MRE 403, which are whether introduction of the prior acts will be unfairly prejudicial and then to weigh the 11 As with the actual crime with which the defendant was charged, there was nothing in the way of physical evidence, records, reports, or other documentation to substantiate these uncharged acts of abuse. Nor was it even clear whether any such evidence ever existed. But as the majority summarizes, the prosecution’s witnesses had much to say about it. Melissa and Kimberly testified about the abuse at length, and other prosecution witnesses testified to little else; indeed, of the prosecution’s nine witnesses, only the two investigating officers did not speak on the topic. These other seven witnesses were all friends and family of the Kountzes, and together, they painted a very grim picture of the defendant’s relationship with Louise: one defined by physical, sexual, and verbal abuse, which was carried out with regularity and without remorse in full view of her family and neighbors, and which continued to manifest itself even after Louise had ended the relationship and the defendant had moved out of the house. probative value or relevance of the evidence against the unfair prejudice.” Lyles, unpub order at 1. The order reasoned that the “[a]dmission of the domestic violence acts against Louise Kantz [sic] will provide a full and complete picture of defendant’s history involving the victim and the occupants of Louise’s house, including Louise, and will tend to shed light on the likelihood that defendant is the perpetrator who broke into the house and stabbed his ex-girlfriend’s cousin.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). The order continued: “Furthermore, the prior acts are not marginally probative nor is it likely that the evidence will be given undue or preemptive weight by the jury, especially if the trial court minimizes the prejudicial effect by properly instructing the jury.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Needless to say, the concluding condition of that rationale may have been overly optimistic. Regardless, despite the cursory and critical nature of this ruling, the defendant’s counsel did not seek our review of it then and did not further challenge the admission of this evidence at trial beyond renewing, for the record, the general MRE 403 challenge that the Court of Appeals’ order had already rejected. Nor did his appellate counsel challenge this ruling, the subsequent admission of the domestic-violence evidence at trial, or trial counsel’s effectiveness with respect to this evidence, in the direct appeal of his conviction. 12 None of these witnesses, however, could—or even attempted to—explain how or why the defendant’s treatment of Louise might have led the defendant to kill Melvin that night. There was no testimony, for instance, that Melvin had ever tried to intervene or even object to the abuse, that he had ever become the target of it himself, or that he had otherwise gotten entangled in the defendant’s relationship with Louise at any point. 16 No, the driving purpose of all this testimony was not to show why or how the defendant killed Melvin, but instead to show that he could have killed Melvin, that he was capable of it, because that sort of violence and brutality was in his character. It’s just the kind of man he was; he had, as the prosecution told the jurors, a “tendency towards violence,” and these accounts of his abuse of Louise were “highly probative” of that tendency and thus “the fact that he committed” Melvin’s murder. And from its opening remarks through to its closing ones, the prosecution made clear to the jurors that this was an inference upon which they could, and should, hang their hats—in evaluating the circumstantial proofs it had presented, and in determining whether the defendant should 16 To the contrary, Melvin was described as younger than the defendant, “small” and “on the frail side” relative to him, and “scared” by his alleged violent conduct, fleeing the room when it would occur. This was in contrast to Melissa and some others, who testified to attempting to stop the defendant at times and getting into altercations with him in the process. There was also some testimony, as the majority notes, that the defendant and Melvin’s sister—who testified at trial and had lived in Louise’s house at some point well prior to Melvin moving in—didn’t get along, resulting in the sister moving out and the defendant and Louise later arguing about whether she could move back in. Melissa provided the sole testimony about the details of that argument, saying that it ended with the defendant expressing his anger by getting a knife from the kitchen and stabbing a mattress. There was no testimony or other indication, however, that Melvin was involved in any of the apparent ill will between his sister and the defendant or that the defendant attributed any of it to him. 13 be convicted. As the prosecution asked the jurors in closing, “Do you really think [these witnesses] all want to come in here and waste their time to get somebody who wasn’t a vicious abuser?” 17 The defendant did not take the stand, but an investigating officer testified to statements the defendant made upon his arrest in 2012. 18 In those statements, the defendant denied much of what was asked of him, including that he had stabbed anyone in 1983 or had ever threatened Louise, and while he acknowledged leaving the state after he and Louise broke up, he explained it was out of fear of her and her family. 19 Although 17 Similarly, the prosecution, in closing, pointed to testimony regarding the defendant’s military service, which the defendant had offered to cast doubt on the time line of certain events offered in the prosecution’s proofs, and argued to the jurors that such service “doesn’t mean you get to come home and beat women, and slam hoods on their head, and rape them in front of their children.” The prosecution then stressed that “[t]here is one person responsible for that [abusive conduct], and one person only, and that’s the defendant. Because he wanted to be in control, he wanted to be the boss. Just like there’s only one person who is responsible for driving that [knife] into Melvin’s heart that night, the defendant.” And while the prosecution would later note to the jurors that “this case is not about Louise,” it was only after telling the jurors that “each and every person has to account for their misdeeds in life,” that “the defendant needs to be held accountable right here, right now for what he did,” and that “the only blind eye anyone is asking you . . . to turn is to the horrible things that this man did, to just let it slide, [because] it won’t help Louise.” 18 As the majority notes, the officer testified that, when he initially approached the defendant, stated his purpose, and asked the defendant’s name, the defendant provided an alias. This testimony, however, was not corroborated by the officer’s written report of the encounter, which did not indicate an alias (despite there being a specific location on the report to do so), or by the defendant’s subsequent statement to police, which did not address it at all. 19 The proofs at trial did not make clear precisely when the defendant left the state: sometime after he moved out of Louise’s home but before the murder occurred; immediately after the murder; or sometime later, after he had been identified as a suspect and/or a warrant was issued for his arrest. The prosecution suggested that he left town 14 he himself didn’t testify, the defendant did present evidence to counter the prosecution’s character attack that had come to dominate his trial; this came in the form of reputation and opinion testimony regarding his general character for peacefulness, and was the extent of the proofs. 20 In particular, he presented the testimony of Kim Harden. Harden was, at the time of trial, a long-time school principal; she was younger than the defendant and had known him her whole life. She testified that she had grown up in the same neighborhood as the defendant and had spent time with him on a daily basis throughout those years until she left for college in 1980. After that, she would return home whenever school wasn’t in session and would again see the defendant on a daily basis, if he was around. He was, according to Harden, “like a cousin to [her],” someone she looked up to “as a mentor, [a] role model”; he was “the reason why [she] finished college,” and his home was “like [her] second home.” And based on all the time she spent with him and what she knew of him, she opined that he was—including at the time relevant to this immediately after the murder based on testimony from Melissa and Kimberly that they never saw the defendant after the murder and that certain harassing behavior toward the house, which they attributed to the defendant, had ceased once the murder occurred. Neither Melissa nor Kimberly, however, testified to actually witnessing the defendant engage in this behavior, or to seeing him at all since an altercation at the house in October 1983. The investigating officer at the time, meanwhile, testified that he began attempting to locate the defendant upon issuance of the arrest warrant in early February 1984 (a little over a month after the murder); after failing to determine the defendant’s whereabouts from speaking with his family members, the officer ultimately learned that the defendant had “gone down south” at some unspecified time. 20 Indeed, this was the only form of affirmative evidence the defendant was permitted to offer as to his good character; unlike the prosecution, his proofs could not include specific instances of past conduct. See MRE 405; People v Williams, 134 Mich App 639, 642; 351 NW2d 878 (1984). 15 case—“a peaceful person” who “didn’t believe in violence” and who had affirmatively counseled her against violent responses to trouble. She further testified that this was his reputation in the community as well at that time—a community which included the Kountzes (whom she also knew). And while, over these years, she had seen the defendant with Louise as well as with other girlfriends on various occasions, she had never seen him verbally or physically abuse any of them, nor had she heard anything from anyone to that effect; she had only ever seen him treat them well, including Louise. He was, Harden said, “always nice and kind” to Louise in the four or five times she saw them together, and she didn’t ever know him to be any other way. The prosecution did not cross-examine her. 21
As is typical, the parties’ presentation of the case was bookended by the court’s instructions to the jurors—which, as the court stressed at both ends, provided the jurors with “the law that you’re to apply to the facts as you find the facts to exist” and which “[y]ou must take . . . as I give it to you.” As is also typical, the court instructed the jurors on the elements of the charged offenses and on an assortment of other standard matters common to criminal trials—including, as the majority notes, general advisements about 21 As the majority summarizes, the defendant also presented testimony from two other witnesses. First, his sister testified to some basic biographical information about him, such as his history of employment and military service. Then, a former girlfriend, who had lived in his and the Kountzes’ neighborhood and had dated him for roughly a year at one point, testified that (1) she had had a “[v]ery nice” relationship with the defendant, free from any verbal or physical abuse, and (2) during the time period relevant to this case, she had never heard anything in the neighborhood about the defendant being verbally and physically abusive to his girlfriend at that time. 16 the meaning of “reasonable doubt” and the jury’s role as the finder of fact (and with it, the arbiter of credibility). The court, however, wove amidst these standard instructions some of its own making, including the one that launched this case on its long appellate odyssey. A few of these bear particular mention. First, the court instructed the jurors regarding the prosecution’s voluminous testimony about the defendant’s abuse of Louise. Before doing so, the court had discussed with the parties the proper instruction for this evidence, with the parties ultimately agreeing that M Crim JI 4.11a (regarding “Evidence of Other Acts of Domestic Violence”) would be best. This model instruction provides: (1) The prosecution has introduced evidence of claimed acts of domestic violence by the defendant for which [he / she] is not on trial. (2) Before you may consider such alleged acts as evidence against the defendant, you must first find that the defendant actually committed such acts. (3) If you find that the defendant did commit those acts, you may consider them in deciding if the defendant committed the [offense / offenses] for which [he / she] is now on trial. (4) You must not convict the defendant here solely because you think [he / she] is guilty of other bad conduct. The evidence must convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged crime, or you must find [him / her] not guilty.[22] This, however, was not the instruction the court then provided to the jurors. Instead, the court instructed: You have heard a lot of evidence, testimony that the respondent committed some improper acts against Louise Kountz, who was at the time his girlfriend. They had that type of relationship. It appears from the 22 Brackets appearing in quotations of the Michigan Criminal Jury Instructions in this opinion appeared in the original. 17 testimony that that testimony of his improper acts against someone is not the decedent and who is accused of murdering, that testimony you must very carefully consider it for certain purposes. You may only think about whether that evidence intends to show that the defendant had a motive to kill Andrew Weathers, the decedent, and also that it tends to show to you that the complete picture of the defendant’s history as it relates to the part of it that Melvin, the decedent Andrew Weathers. You’ve heard that testimony involving Louise Kountz, the deceased Andrew Weathers, Melvin, the deceased --- now, Louise Kountz died, I guess, just four or five years ago and of natural --- not in this murder, but she was living at this address at 88 Louise Street in Highland Park, and that there were other people living at that address. And that the other people have testified as to improper acts that the defendant committed not against Andrew Weathers, but against Louise Kountz for the most part. You must carefully balance that testimony of improper acts so not to prejudice yourself against this defendant and this murder, to only that he had a motive and he was in this environment, the decedent Andrew Weathers. Now, I mentioned motive, in that bit of the instructions as to those improper acts committed, if you find that they were, in fact, committed, against, if you will, Louise Kountz, who was --- well, you know the relationship between her and the defendant. That those acts were for motive of the defendant to kill someone else, Melvin, not Ms. Kountz. This, it seems, was an amalgam between the agreed-upon M Crim JI 4.11a and M Crim JI 4.11, the model instruction for evidence admitted under MRE 404(b) 23—with substantial 23 M Crim JI 4.11 provides: (1) You have heard evidence that was introduced to show that the defendant committed [a crime / crimes / improper acts] for which [he / she] is not on trial. (2) If you believe this evidence, you must be very careful only to consider it for certain purposes. You may only think about whether this evidence tends to show: [Choose one or more from (a) through (g):] 18 liberties taken by the court as to both. For instance, while the court advised the jurors that they “must carefully balance that testimony of improper acts so [as] not to prejudice yourself against this defendant and this murder,” it did not expressly advise them, as both M Crim JI 4.11 and 4.11a would have, that they “must not convict the defendant here because you think [he] is guilty of other bad conduct.” 24 (a) That the defendant had a reason to commit the crime; (b) That the defendant specifically meant to ___________; (c) That the defendant knew what the things found in [his / her] possession were; (d) That the defendant acted purposefully—that is, not by accident or mistake, or because [he / she] misjudged the situation; (e) That the defendant used a plan, system, or characteristic scheme that [he / she] has used before or since; (f) Who committed the crime that the defendant is charged with. (g) [State other proper purpose for which evidence is offered.] (3) You must not consider this evidence for any other purpose. For example, you must not decide that it shows that the defendant is a bad person or that [he / she] is likely to commit crimes. You must not convict the defendant here because you think [he / she] is guilty of other bad conduct. All the evidence must convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged crime, or you must find [him / her] not guilty. 24 On direct appeal, the defendant raised a very cursory challenge to this instruction, which the Court of Appeals panel addressed briefly in its first unpublished opinion, after concluding the defendant was entitled to a new trial based on the instructional error now before us. The panel observed that “although the trial court’s instructions on other acts evidence may not have been so inadequate as to warrant reversal, they were certainly imperfect” and should, on re-trial, be corrected to adhere to the model instructions. Lyles, 19 At this point, the prosecution asked to approach the bench, but the court preferred to finish its instructions first. Ultimately, the court instructed the jurors on various other aspects of the prosecution’s proofs, including that (1) “evidence that the defendant moved away . . . does not prove his guilt” but may reflect “a consciousness of guilt,” and the jurors “must decide whether the evidence is true and if true, whether it shows that the defendant had a guilty state of mind”; (2) “[t]he prosecutor does not have to prove that the defendant had a reason to commit the alleged crime, she only has to show that the defendant actually committed the crime or that he meant to do so”; and (3) “you may use the [prosecution’s] identification testimony alone to convict the defendant as long as you believe the testimony and you find that it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the person who committed the crime.” After the court finished its instructions, counsel for both sides raised a number of concerns and omissions—including the court’s failure to provide the agreed-upon instruction under 4.11a, and its failure to instruct the jury on the defendant’s character evidence under M Crim JI 5.8a(1), which provides: (1) You have heard evidence about the defendant’s character for [peacefulness / honesty / good sexual morals / being law-abiding / (describe other trait)]. You may consider this evidence, together with all the other evidence in the case, in deciding whether the defendant committed the crime with which (he / she) is charged. Evidence of good character alone may sometimes create a reasonable doubt in your minds and lead you to find the defendant not guilty.[25] unpub op at 6. The panel also briefly rejected two other, similarly cursory challenges the defendant had raised. Id. The defendant did not seek our review of any of these rulings. 25 M Crim JI 5.8a provides in full: 20 The court then recalled the jury and rattled off further instructions. It did not revisit its instruction regarding the domestic-violence evidence, but—as we well know at this point, and in apparent response to defense counsel’s request for M Crim JI 5.8a(1)— it did provide the following instruction: [Y]ou’ve heard the testimony of --- about witness’ [sic] truthfulness. You may consider this evidence together with all other evidence in the case in deciding whether you believe the testimony of the witness, in[] deciding how much weight to give to that witness. The prosecutor has examined some of the defendant’s character witnesses as to whether or not they heard anything bad about the defendant. You should consider such cross- (1) You have heard evidence about the defendant’s character for [peacefulness / honesty / good sexual morals / being law-abiding / (describe other trait)]. You may consider this evidence, together with all the other evidence in the case, in deciding whether the defendant committed the crime with which (he / she) is charged. Evidence of good character alone may sometimes create a reasonable doubt in your minds and lead you to find the defendant not guilty. [(2) The prosecutor has cross-examined (one / some) of the defendant’s character witnesses as to whether they had heard anything bad about the defendant. You should consider such cross-examination only in deciding whether you believe the character witnesses and whether they described the defendant fairly.] [(3) The prosecutor also called witnesses who testified that the defendant does not have the good character described by the defendant’s character witnesses. This evidence can only be considered by you in judging whether you believe the defendant’s character witnesses and whether the defendant has a good character for (describe trait). It is not evidence that the defendant committed the crime charged.] As the instruction’s Use Notes make clear, and as the parties here don’t dispute, only Subsection (1) of this instruction applied to this case, as the prosecution did not crossexamine “the defendant’s character witnesses as to whether they had heard anything bad about the defendant” and did not call any witnesses to rebut them. 21 examination only in deciding whether or not you believe the character witness and whether they described the [defendant] fairly. The prosecutor also has called witnesses who have testified that the defendant did not have good character of the other acts. This, of course, wasn’t M Crim JI 5.8a(1), and neither it nor any other instruction made any mention of the defendant’s character evidence or its potential legal effect on the jurors’ assessment of reasonable doubt. Instead, it was another court-fashioned amalgam, seemingly derived from M Crim JI 5.8 (“Character Evidence Regarding Credibility of Witness”)—an instruction that the parties neither requested nor had reason to request, given the evidence presented. 26 The court didn’t simply swap 5.8a for 5.8, however. The court modified the last sentence of M Crim JI 5.8(3) to refer not to 26 M Crim JI 5.8 provides in full: (1) You have heard evidence about the character of [name witness] for truthfulness. You may consider this evidence, together with all the other evidence in the case, in deciding whether you believe the testimony of [name witness] and in deciding how much weight to give that testimony. [(2) The prosecutor has cross-examined (one / some) of the defendant’s character witnesses as to whether they had heard anything bad about the defendant. You should consider such cross-examination only in deciding whether you believe the character witnesses and whether they described (him / her) fairly.] [(3) The prosecutor also called witnesses who testified that the defendant does not have a good character for truthfulness. This evidence can only be considered by you in judging the believability of the defendant’s testimony. It is not evidence that (he / she) committed the crime charged.] As with M Crim JI 5.8a, there is seemingly no dispute that the second two subsections of M Crim JI 5.8 are inapplicable here. The same holds true for the first subsection of 5.8, as neither party provided character evidence regarding the truthfulness of any witness who testified at trial. 22 testimony about the defendant’s bad character for truthfulness but instead to testimony about his bad character “of the other acts”—hearkening the jury back once again to the evidence of the defendant’s abuse of Louise and the character inference to be drawn therefrom, but lending no further guidance as to how that inference could be considered. Defense counsel again objected, but—after a seemingly prescient but unheeded aside by the trial court that judges “get in trouble when they ad lib”—the instructions went unchanged and the jurors went forward with their deliberations, 27 ultimately returning the guilty verdict now before us once again. 28