Court Opinion

ID: 9739697
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:19:44.965365+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:13.482558
License: Public Domain

Neff, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I take issue with the majority opinion on two bases. First, I find that there was insufficient evidence to convict of voluntary manslaughter and would reverse and remand for entry of a judgment of not guilty of that charge were it not for the holding of People v Buck, 197 Mich App 404; 496 NW2d 321 (1992), which will be discussed infra. Second, I find that admission of the evidence of flight constituted prejudicial error requiring reversal.
*411I
The facts of this case are somewhat unusual and the evidence against defendant was not by any means overwhelming. As pointed out in the majority opinion, the case against defendant was strictly circumstantial. There was no testimony at trial to suggest any motive for defendant to kill the victim, nor was there any testimony of any bad blood between the two.
The actions of the victim’s husband and mother, who were in the house at the time she was killed, add to the aura of uncertainty about the events that led to the victim’s death.
The victim’s mother was on the telephone when she heard her daughter scream from the basement. Instead of investigating immediately, she continued to talk for a short time on the telephone and did not go to the basement until defendant went upstairs and told her that an ambulance should be called. She then went to the basement and observed the victim, but did not attempt to give any assistance. She returned to the telephone, but was unable to find the phone number for the ambulance. She then called her husband’s niece and asked her to come over to give assistance.
While waiting for the niece to arrive, the mother did not return to the basement to check on her daughter, but sat and watched television.
The victim’s husband, who claims to have been asleep, gave conflicting stories about what awoke him. He initially told the police that it was his mother-in-law’s scream that awakened him, but then later testified that it was his wife’s scream from the basement that roused him from his nap. He, too, went to the basement, observed his wife, and failed to offer or attempt any assistance to her. He waited upstairs for his niece’s arrival, not *412in the basement where his wife lay dying. The majority suggests that his inability to read precluded him from locating phone numbers to call for help. However, he had no explanation for his failure to go to a neighbor or get in his car and drive for help.
When the niece arrived, she went immediately to the basement, where she determined that the victim had no pulse. She felt at that point that the victim was dead, but she went immediately back upstairs and telephoned the sheriffs department for assistance.
The sheriffs department sent an ambulance, and the attendants attempted to revive the victim. Oddly enough, they did not, discover the five knife wounds in the victim’s back from which she had bled to death. It was not until the victim was taken to the hospital that these wounds were discovered in the emergency room. It was at this point that hospital personnel notified the sheriffs department. The sheriffs department then contacted the husband, who had remained at home when his wife was taken to the hospital. In fact, the husband did not even learn of his wife’s death until some time later that night after law enforcement officers investigated the scene of the crime and he went to the police department to answer questions. He then went to his brother’s home.
ii
During the course of the trial, defense counsel consistently urged the jury to return a verdict of not guilty of the charge of second-degree murder. He did not ask for or suggest a conviction of the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter in argument, it was not a part of his theory of defense, and there is no indication in the lower court *413record of any request by defense counsel for an instruction on voluntary manslaughter. The portion of the trial transcript covering the postinstruction discussions between the trial court and counsel includes a brief mention by the trial court that defendant requested an instruction on the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter in chambers, but there is no transcript of the in-chambers conference involving jury instructions. The suggestion in the majority opinion that defendant "successfully persuaded” the trial court to instruct on voluntary manslaughter is an editorial comment not supported by the record.
Voluntary manslaughter is distinguishable from the crime of murder and is a cognate lesser included offense of murder. People v Pouncey, 437 Mich 382, 388; 471 NW2d 346 (1991). The components of voluntary manslaughter are that the defendant must kill in the heat of passion caused by an adequate provocation and without a lapse of time during which a reasonable person could control his passions. The killing must be intentional. Id., p 388; People v Townes, 391 Mich 578, 589; 218 NW2d 136 (1974). While provocation need not be proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt, there must be some evidence of provocation in order for the instruction on voluntary manslaughter to be given. People v Moore, 189 Mich App 315, 320; 472 NW2d 1 (1991).
A
The record before us is totally devoid of any evidence or testimony suggesting provocation or heat of passion. It was clear legal error to instruct the jury on the offense of voluntary manslaughter. Defendant did not move for a directed verdict on the charge of voluntary manslaughter, but our *414failure to review the issue would clearly amount to manifest injustice because the evidence provides no support whatsoever for a conviction of that charge.
Although the record reflects the trial court’s remark that defense counsel requested an instruction on voluntary manslaughter during in-chambers discussion of jury instructions, I find an insufficient basis on which to refuse to review this issue. As noted in Moore, supra, p 319:
At a criminal trial, the judge functions both as a neutral arbiter between the two contesting parties and as the jury’s guide to the law. This role requires that the judge instruct the jury regarding the law applicable to the case, MCL 768.29; MSA 28.1052, and fully and fairly present the case to the jury in an understandable manner. People v Jones, 419 Mich 577, 579; 358 NW2d 837 (1984). The fulfillment of this obligation requires that the judge instruct on included offenses where there is a request to do so and where there is evidence in the record which would support a conviction of the lesser offense. People v Richardson, 409 Mich 126, 135; 293 NW2d 332 (1980); People v Ora Jones, 395 Mich 379, 386; 236 NW2d 461 (1975). When no evidence exists to support a conviction of a lesser-included offense, an instruction with regard to a lesser-included offense detracts from, rather than enhances, the rationality and reliability of the fact-finding process. People v Beach, 429 Mich 450, 481; 418 NW2d 861 (1988).
In order to support an instruction on a lesser included offense, "[tjhere must be some evidence on the record to support the elements of the requested lesser included (cognate) offense.” Beach, supra, p 480.
While there might have been a request to instruct on voluntary manslaughter by the defense *415in this case, there clearly is no evidence in the record to support a conviction of that lesser offense. It was the obligation of the trial court to refuse a request to instruct on an offense totally unsupported by any testimony or evidence in the record.
B
In Buck, supra, a panel of this Court held that a conviction of voluntary manslaughter may be upheld despite the lack of evidence to support it where there was sufficient evidence to convict of a greater offense and the defendant requested a jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter. Buck, supra, pp 419-423. The Buck panel concluded that the evidence against Franklin C. Geick, a defendant in the Buck case, was insufficient to support a conviction of voluntary manslaughter. However, in refusing to reverse Geick’s conviction of voluntary manslaughter, the Buck panel relied on past decisions of this Court that allowed an aider and abettor to be convicted of a crime lesser than that committed by the principal, foreign authority, and on Geick’s request for an instruction on voluntary manslaughter. The Buck panel put significant emphasis on the fact that there was considerable evidence in the record from which to conclude that Geick was guilty of aiding and abetting first-degree murder.
The evidence presented against defendant is far less compelling than the evidence presented against Geick in the Buck case. While the circumstantial evidence against defendant in this case might arguably support a second-degree murder conviction, the evidence was relatively unimpressive. Defendant was in the basement when the victim screamed, and he went upstairs and told *416the victim’s mother to call an ambulance. His bloody palm print was found in the basement. However, he explained during his own testimony that he found the victim lying on the floor and lifted her up to prop her against the wall. When he removed his hand from her back, it was covered with blood. He then placed his hand against one of the appliances to steady himself and thereby left the bloody palm print. When defendant was arrested in Florida, the police found a knife that contained traces of blood, but scientific testing did not establish whether the blood was human or animal.
While these facts might be sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to conclude that defendant committed second-degree murder, they do not, as the facts against the defendant in the Buck case did, constitute strong evidence that defendant committed the greater charged offense. I disagree with the conclusion reached in Buck on the basis of the reasoning of Beach, supra, and Moore, supra. Because I must follow the holding in Buck under Administrative Order No. 1990-6, 436 Mich lxxxiv, and Administrative Order No. 1991-11, 439 Mich cxliv, and extended by Administrative Order No. 1992-8, 441 Mich cxi, I acknowledge that reversal cannot be based on the fact that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction of voluntary manslaughter, but follow Buck only because of the requirements of the administrative order.
Because there was insufficient evidence to convict of voluntary manslaughter, I would reverse and remand for entry of a judgment of not guilty of that charge were it not for the holding of the Buck case.
hi
Defendant’s contention that the trial court com*417mitted error requiring reversal in allowing the prosecutor to introduce evidence that he fled the State of Michigan following the victim’s death is persuasive.
A
The probative value of evidence of flight is inherently questionable. In Wong Sun v United States, 371 US 471, 483-484, n 10; 83 S Ct 407; 9 L Ed 2d 441 (1963), the United States Supreme Court observed the following with regard to such evidence:
Although the question presented here is only whether the petitioner’s flight justified an inference of guilt sufficient to generate probable cause for his arrest, and not whether his flight would serve to corroborate proof of his guilt at trial, the two questions are inescapably related. Thus it is relevant to the present case that we have consistently doubted the probative value in criminal trials of evidence that the accused fled the scene of an actual or supposed crime. In Alberty v United States, 162 US 499, 511 [16 S Ct 864; 40 L Ed 1051 (1896)], this Court said:
". . . it is not universally true that a man, who is conscious that he has done a wrong, 'will pursue a certain course not in harmony with the conduct of a man who is conscious of having done an act which is innocent, right and proper;’ since it is a matter of common knowledge that men who are entirely innocent do sometimes fly from the scene of a crime through fear of being apprehended as the guilty parties, or from an unwillingness to appear as witnesses. Nor is it true as an accepted axiom of criminal law that 'the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion.’ ”
*418See also Hickory v United States, 160 US 408; [16 S Ct 327; 40 L Ed 474 (1896)]; Allen v United States, 164 US 492; [17 S Ct 154; 41 L Ed 528 (1896)]; Starr v United States, 164 US 627 [17 S Ct 223; 41 L Ed 577 (1897)]; and for the views of two Courts of Appeals see Vick v United States, 216 F2d 228, 233 [(CA 5, 1954)]. ("One motive is about as likely as another. Appellant may be guilty, but his conviction cannot rest upon mere conjecture and suspicion”); cf. Cooper v United States [94 US App DC 343, 345; 218 F2d 39 [(1954)]. ("After all, innocent people caught in a web of circumstances frequently become terror-stricken”). But cf. United States v Heitner, 149 F2d 105 [(CA 2, 1945)].
B
My review of the ruling to admit the evidence of flight constrains me to conclude that the ruling was in error. I am mindful that the instruction given by the trial court on the use of that evidence was accurate, and that there is specific authority to support the court’s conclusion that such evidence is admissible to show consciousness of guilt. See e.g., People v Stull, 127 Mich App 14, 18-19; 338 NW2d 403 (1983), and CJI2d 4.4. Nevertheless, given the completely circumstantial nature of the case against defendant, coupled with the equivocal nature of the evidence of flight, I believe that the trial court erred in failing to exclude the evidence pursuant to MRE 403.
Defendant is an ex-felon, whose prior convictions were ruled inadmissible for purposes of impeachment. Nevertheless, defendant was compelled to testify about his prior convictions after the trial court ruled that evidence of flight would be admitted:
Q. [Defense counsel]: Why did you just leave the *419Young household [after finding Cathern injured and apparently dead in the laundry room]?
A. [Defendant]: Because I was scared.
Q. Why, Rex, were you scared?
A. Because I was afraid I’d be arrested.
Q. Why?
A. Mainly because of my priors.
Q. By "priors” what do you mean?
A. Prior convictions I had.
Q. Did you go to prison before?
A. Yes, I had.
Q. When?
A. I went in '77, in December.
Q. What was that for?
A. Unarmed robbery.
Q. And how long did you stay in prison?
A. I was in prison for six years.
Q. And when did you get out?
A. I believe it was in April of '83, but I’m not quite sure of that.
Central to my holding is the nature of the case against defendant. While I am not prepared to say that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support a finding that defendant did in fact kill Cathern Young, I am prepared to say that the circumstantial case against him was far from airtight. Although defendant was seen emerging from the basement where Cathern’s body was found, no one saw him stab her and unlike the victim’s husband, he had no motive to kill her.
The majority strains to speculate that defendant had a "guilty heart” because his discovery of blood when he moved the victim led him to believe that foul play was involved and that he would be blamed. I conclude quite the opposite. Any reasonable person in similar circumstances would almost certainly conclude that the victim had met with something other than an accident. As a convicted *420felon, he knew immediately that he would be a suspect and that his prior record would impair seriously his credibility.
Furthermore, the actions of the other individuals in the home following the discovery of Cathern’s body — including Cathern’s husband, who collected over $67,000 on a recently increased life insurance policy — appear quite strange. I am particularly troubled by the failure of these individuals to summon an ambulance promptly after hearing the victim scream and being told by defendant to do so.
Of course, these matters were before the jury and it was entirely within its province to assess the weight of all the evidence in determining defendant’s guilt or innocence. I emphasize the above points, however, to highlight the unfair prejudice that resulted from admitting the evidence of flight. What was admitted ostensibly for the limited purpose of showing "consciousness of guilt” in all likelihood became the pivotal fact that tipped the scales in favor of a guilty verdict.1
c
In short, I refuse to uphold a conviction where on review of the record I am persuaded that the verdict might have rested upon evidence that may be "as consistent with innocence as with guilt.” People v Clark, 124 Mich App 410; 335 NW2d 53 (1983). Under the circumstances of this case, the probative value of the evidence of flight was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Consequently, the evidence should have been excluded pursuant to MRE 403. For these *421reasons, I would reverse defendant’s conviction of voluntary manslaughter.
As noted in § n of this opinion, the present record is totally devoid of any evidence of provocation or heat of passion sufficient to mitigate murder to manslaughter. Were it not for Buck, supra, I would reverse on the basis of sufficiency of the evidence, and instruct the trial court, on remand, to enter a judgment of acquittal if evidence in support of the elements of voluntary manslaughter is not adduced.

 Indeed, I agree with defendant that the jury’s compromise verdict of voluntary manslaughter rather than second-degree murder suggests a lingering uncertainty regarding whether he was the killer.