Court Opinion

ID: 9687350
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:25:44.982849+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:26.326024
License: Public Domain

Cavanagh, J.
(concurring). I disagree with the majority’s interpretation of the spousal privilege exception found in MCL 600.2162; MSA 27A.2162. The majority’s reading of the phrase “grows out of” rejects the statutory language and is little more than a restatement of the “same criminal transaction” test espoused by Justice Boyle in her People v Love dissent.1 However, because there was extensive evidence against defendant relating to the crimes of felony murder and udaa, including defendant’s detailed confession, I would hold the error harmless under People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484; 596 NW2d 607 (1999).
SPOUSAL PRIVILEGE
As I stated in my lead opinion in Love, the phrase “grows out of” indicates that a particular cause of action must be for the personal injury inflicted upon one spouse by the other. 425 Mich 702. In other words, the crime charged must have been committed against the witness-spouse to come within the exception. Id.
In this case, the prosecution’s causes of action for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, assault and battery, and kidnapping grew out of the personal wrong *433inflicted upon Ms. Warren by defendant. For these charges, the witness-spouse may testify under the statute. However, the causes of action for felony murder and UDAA grew out of the personal injuries inflicted upon Ms. Powell. The fact that there was a connection between the crimes against the two victims is not the determining factor in deciding which cause of action grew out of each personal wrong or injury. Moreover, the fact that the defendant subjectively related his crimes against third parties to wrongs against the witness-spouse has no relationship to the statutory language or intent of the Legislature.
The majority rejects my interpretation as following People v Quanstrom, 93 Mich 254; 53 NW 165 (1892). Instead, my interpretation follows, and is consistent with, the plain language of the statute. As I noted in Love, the Legislature responded to Quanstrom by amending the spousal privilege statute to except bigamy prosecutions. It did not amend the statutory language for suits “ ‘where the cause of action grows out of a personal wrong or injury done by one to the other’ . . . .” 425 Mich 702. The majority provides that the amendment to include bigamy as an exception to the privilege indicates that the Legislature did not intend the narrow reading of the personal wrong exception rendered by the Quanstrom Court. Ante at 423. On the contrary, the addition of a specific exception for bigamy, while retaining the “narrow” remaining language, evidences the Legislature’s agreement with a narrow rule. It did not amend the rule to include all precedential acts committed by a spouse when the underlying goal is to commit a wrong against the witness-spouse. Ante at 429. Since Love, *434the statute was again amended, and the Legislature again retained the “grows out of” language.2 Therefore, there is no reason to create yet another interpretation of the same statutory language.
I would hold that the exception for spousal testimony does not apply to allow the witness-spouse to testify against defendant regarding the felony murder or udaa. These crimes did not grow out of a personal wrong or injury done by defendant to Ms. Warren.
HARMLESS ERROR
Lukity provides that the preserved errors are grounds for reversal if “ ‘after an examination of the entire cause, it shall affirmatively appear’ that it is more probable than not that the error was outcome determinative.” Id. at 495-496.
In this case, the prosecution provided twenty-six witnesses. Several police officers testified about finding the deceased Ms. Powell at the crime scene.
Thomas lean, a neighbor testified that Ms. Warren knocked on his door, while still partially bound, and told him her mother may have been killed.
William Toskey testified that he took the 911 call that was then played to the jury.
Theresa Harris, defendant’s sister-in-law, testified that defendant threatened her sister. In response, she took her sister to their mother’s home. She identified the knife used in the stabbing as belonging to her mother.
*435Laurence Simson, a forensic pathologist, testified that Ms. Powell’s death was caused by eight stab wounds.
Deputy Sheriff Todd Miller testified that he received a radio bulletin for a Buick Century about 11:50 A.M. on January 19, 1995. He saw what turned out to be defendant driving eastbound. He pursued defendant in a high speed chase that ended on a remote road. He testified that he hand cuffed defendant and transported him back to Battle Creek. Miller testified that, while in the car, defendant stated that “when I left that fucking place, they were all still alive.” The deputy stated that defendant did not seem intoxicated.
Michael Van Stratton, supervisor of the Battle Creek crime laboratory, provided testimony as an expert in fingerprint evidence. He testified that he discovered a window that had been removed from the house, and a broken window from a door. He also seized a pair of boots and a beer can with defendant’s fingerprints on it. He also testified that he seized a pair of what appeared to be blood-stained pants worn by defendant. He confirmed that no fingerprints were found on the knife or mop.
These witnesses support much of the most damaging evidence—that of defendant’s videotaped confession. Detective Timothy Hurtt testified that he read defendant his Miranda3 rights and taped the interview. This interview was played to the jury. After explaining the details of the fight at home, defendant explained that he went to Ms. Powell’s home:
*436A. Okay, so I went over there and busted the side window and went in and went downstairs.
Q. Okay.
A. And I hid.
Q. Were they there when you got there?
A. Police came shortly after and Regina and her mama talked to the police.
* * *
Q. Okay, so you broke in the door, okay. Alright [sic], you say you were in the basement, the police came and Regina ... go ahead.
A. Regina mama, she went through the house. The police say “you sure he not here,” Regina mama say “No, he’s not here” then the police left and Regina mama went back downstairs and went and picked up my socks and my coat, she looked at my coat. . . . Then she looked around, she went back upstairs, she knew I was there, she didn’t say anything, she just, she didn’t say anything.
Q. Where were you hiding at?
A. In the wash room.
* * :|:
A. Cause she went upstairs, I went behind her, she didn’t know it, she walked on through, I was upstairs sitting on the stairs, I said “God, I just want to talk to my wife, just want to talk to my wife and go home.” And she was talking about, you know, she said “Hell, it’s over between you and me” and her mama was saying “You don’t need him” and this and that, dogging me up. And I said “Dang, what have I done to deserve this.” Then her mama came downstairs; she had a mop, a big mop or something, . . . [and] she came downstairs. And I was down there cutting the phone line, cause I didn’t want her calling, you know, to call the police on me.
Q. What were you cutting it with?
A. With a knife, the phone line.
Q. Alright [sic].
*437A. Then she came down and she started beating me with that instrument she had. . . . And I grabbed her and we was tussling around and stuff and she said “Call the police, call the police” and I pushed and then she did like this and I looked (inaudible), I looked and she feel [sic], I was like “Oh, my God” and then I run up the stairs, I said “No,” you know, and she was, I repeat she was not dead, I did not kill her, she was not dead, indeed she was bleeding, I seen her blood on the knife, and I said “Oh, my God.” And I ran up the stairs because of the fact it scared me, I’m not no crazy person, I’m not no killer, I mean I’ve seen killers and I’ve seen crazy people, and then I know they are crazy, I am not one.
After describing the altercation with Ms. Warren over the knife, he explained further:
See if I was crazy I would be like bump it, I killed her and everything else and then do what crazy people, I’m not like that. She [Ms. Warren] said “Put the knife down,” I said “Oh,” I threw the knife .... I knew that her ma was bleeding and I was scared ....
Defendant then stated that the following morning, Ms. Warren asked to be tied up before he went to the store. He then explained that he only wanted the American dream, but things got out of control.
I can not describe it, all I know is anxiety was pulling me, I was pissed off, I had been drinking, I got beat down by a mop, and we were tussling with a knife. I pushed her, and I looked and I looked over the knife and she was like “Call the police” ....
When asked what happened when he left the house, he explained that he returned home, and then attempted to return to his wife.
*438I was all the way up to the street and I stopped, I seen the fire truck there ... I turned that car around and went back to the crib .... After I left the crib, I hit the back road out of Battle Creek, police passing me left and right, I headed out ....
Although defendant presented expert testimony that he had emotional and psychological problems, and that he had been drinking, this is not enough to overcome the Lukity harmless error test. Given the strength of evidence presented against defendant for the crimes of felony murder and udaa, it does not affirmatively appear that it is more probable than not that the error was outcome determinative. 460 Mich 496. Because of this properly admitted evidence, I would hold that the error was harmless under Lukity.

 425 Mich 691, 713; 391 NW2d 738 (1986).

 1994 PA 67, § 2162(1).

 Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436; 86 S Ct 1602; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966).