PEOPLE Of The State Of Mich. V. DAVIS, 290131
| Decision Date | 22 June 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 08-030280-FC,No. 290131,290131,08-030280-FC |
| Parties | PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,Plaintiff-Appellee,vDEONTAE TRAVOHN DAVIS,Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Before: Fort Hood, P.J., and Borrello and Stephens, JJ.
Defendant appeals as of right from his conviction following a jury trial of one count of conspiracy to commit first-degree premeditated murder, MCL 750.157a; MCL 750.316, seven counts of attempted murder, MCL 750.91, one count of placing offensive or injurious substances in or near real or personal property, MCL 750.209(1)(b), one count of conspiracy to commit arson of a dwelling house, MCL 750.157a; MCL 750.72, and one count of arson of a dwelling house, MCL 750.72. Defendant was sentenced as a habitual offender, third offense, MCL 769.11, to concurrent prison terms of life with the possibility of parole for conspiracy to commit first-degree premeditated murder, 18 to 40 years for each of the seven counts of attempted murder, 10 to 20 years for placing offensive or injurious substances in or near real or personal property, 10 to 20 years for conspiracy to commit arson of a dwelling house, and 10 to 20 years for arson of a dwelling house. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm the convictions and sentences of defendant.
This case arises from events that occurred on December 10, 2007, in Saginaw, Michigan. According to the testimony of witnesses, including that of Darell Hewitt, who agreed to testify "truthfully and completely... about the events that occurred December 10th, 2007, "1 he, defendant, Caprice Mack, Dquan Favorite, Arnell Johnson, Jeremy Williamson and Deshawn Christopher were drinking and playing games at a house on Sanford Street when Tonya Wilson's car was burned. Travis Crowley2 testified that his girlfriend, April Johnson, called him and told him that her mom's car "got blew up." Crowley said that Mack got on the phone and told him that "some boys had blew up Tonya['s] car, so... they said that they was gonna take care of it."
According to Hewitt, after Wilson's car burned, defendant and Favorite discussed retaliating against persons at a duplex located at 1622 Farwell Street in Saginaw because they thought Ronell Hinley had burned the car. Hewitt said that the group planned "to set the [Farwell] car on fire" and "to shoot anybody that come [sic] out of the house." Hewitt testified, however, that there was no agreement to set fire to the house or to kill anyone.
The evidence indicated that defendant, Hewitt, Favorite, Mack, Johnson and Williamson went to the house at Farwell to set the car on fire, but they failed to successfully do so. The men returned to the house on Sanford and then defendant, Hewitt, Favorite, Mack and Christopher made a second trip to the Farwell house. Defendant and Mack went into the garage with containers of gasoline and then ran out. This time, the car in the Farwell house garage was set on fire. There was evidence that Hewitt and Favorite had guns and that as the fire at the Farwell house spread from the garage to the house, people began to leave the house, and Hewitt and Favorite shot at the people as they left.
Defendant, Favorite, and Mack, who were all tried together, moved for a directed verdict on all counts. Defendant argued that Hewitt's testimony, in a light most favorable to the prosecutor, showed that there was a plan to burn a car in the Farwell house's garage. Defendant argued that this was insufficient to support a charge of attempted murder or conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. The trial court, concluding that the combination of starting a house on fire at 2:00 a.m. and shooting at people as they exited the house "establish[ed] evidence of attempt to murder," denied the motion for directed verdict as to all three defendants. On July 2, 2009, defendant moved for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence, the evidence being an affidavit, purportedly from Hewitt, wherein Hewitt claims that he lied at trial to save himself, and that defendant "is innocent of all charges." The trial court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing, and this appeal ensued.
Defendant first argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of conspiracy to commit first-degree premeditated murder. When reviewing a sufficiency challenge, "this Court reviews the record de novo to determine whether the evidence presented by the prosecutor, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecutor, could persuade a rational trier of fact that the essential elements of the crime charged were proved beyond a reasonable doubt." People v Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101, 122; 631 NW2d 67 (2001).
"[C]onspiracy is a crime separate and distinct from the substantive offense" the parties have conspired to achieve. People v Hamp, 110 Mich App 92, 102; 312 NW2d 175 (1981). Conspiracy requires the specific intent to combine with others and the specific intent to accomplish the illegal objective of the conspiracy. People v Cotton, 191 Mich App 377, 392-393; 478 NW2d 681 (1991). It is often stated in case law that "the gist" of the crime is the agreement between the conspirators to commit the substantive offense. See, e.g., People v Blume, 443 Mich 476, 481; 505 NW2d 843 (1993). An agreement cannot exist where the parties have not manifested a shared intent, which necessarily requires knowledge of the intent of the other conspirators. So while the agreement to conspire may be express or implied, People v Barajas, 198 Mich App 551, 553-554; 499 NW2d 396 (1993), it must nevertheless be born of a unity of will that results from an agreement.
Nonetheless, because it is the nature of a conspiracy to be covert, proof of the agreement can be drawn from inferences arising from the conduct of the individual conspirators. People v Justice (After Remand), 454 Mich 334, 347; 562 NW2d 652 (1997); LaFave, Criminal Law (2d ed, Hornbook Series), § 6.4(d), p 532. Similarly, intent "may be proven directly by inference from the conduct of the accused and surrounding circumstances from which it logically and reasonably follows." People v Lawton, 196 Mich App 341, 349; 482 NW2d 810 (1992) (citations omitted). As such, minimal circumstantial evidence is sufficient. People v Fennell, 260 Mich App 261, 270-271; 677 NW2d 66 (2004). A conspiracy is complete upon the formation of the agreement. Justice, 454 Mich at 393.
The illegal objective of the conspiracy in this case was first-degree premeditated murder, which is the intentional killing of a victim where the killing was premeditated and deliberate. People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 223, 229; 749 NW2d 272 (2008); see also MCL 750.316(1). "To prove a conspiracy to commit murder, it must be established that each of the conspirators have the intent required for murder and, to establish that intent, there must be foreknowledge of that intent." Hamp, 110 Mich App at 103.
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence supports the prosecution's theory that defendant conspired with Darell Hewitt, Caprice Mack, and Dquan Favorite to kill the occupants of a house located on Farwell Street in Saginaw, MI. Hewitt testified that after Tonya Wilson's car was burned, the group discussed retaliating and picked out the target of the retaliation. According to Hewitt, defendant and Favorite stated that the Farwell house was to be the focus of the retaliation. Hewitt testified that the group planned to set a car on fire located at the residence and "to shoot anybody that come [sic] out of the house" to escape the fire. Hewitt said that defendant, Mack, Arnell Johnson, and Jeremy Williamson brought the gasoline to be used to set the fire, and that he and Favorite brought handguns to shoot at those exiting the house. Hewitt said that when the group got to the Farwell house, he and defendant went to the house's driveway, Favorite and Mack went across the street, and Johnson and Williamson went into the garage. Failing to set the car on fire, the six men returned to the housewhere they had been playing games and drinking. At the suggestion of defendant and Favorite, defendant, Mack, Hewitt, Favorite, and Deshawn Christopher agreed to make a second trip to the Farwell house. On the second trip, defendant and Mack were going to start the car on fire, Hewitt and Favorite were supposed to shoot people that came out of the house, and Christopher was the lookout.
Hewitt said that he watched defendant and Mack go into the garage with the containers of gasoline and then come running out. Hewitt said that he ran across the street, looked back, and saw that the car parked in the Farwell house's garage was on fire. Travis Crowley said that after a few minutes, the fire spread from the garage to the house, and after about ten or 15 minutes, people began to leave the house. Hewitt said that from across the street, he and Favorite started shooting at the people when they came out of the house. Crowley recalled that defendant said later, "That's how you set a fire."
Hewitt did testify on cross-examination that there had been no agreement to set the house on fire or to kill its occupants. As instructed, however, the jury was free to believe or disbelieve, in whole or in part, the testimony presented at trial. People v Eisenberg, 72 Mich App 106, 115; 249 NW2d 313 (1976). We will not engage in second-guessing the jury's determination of witness credibility and reweigh the evidence. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 514; 489 NW2d 748, amended on other grounds 441 Mich 1201 (1992).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, and deferring to the jury on matters of witness credibility, sufficient evidence was presented at trial to support defendant's conviction of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder. Defendant's actions and the inferences arriving from them were more than sufficient to show the existence of a unity of intent born of the conspiratorial agreement.
D...
To continue reading
Request your trial