People v. Bauman
| Decision Date | 18 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | 357186 |
| Parties | PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSHUA MICHAEL BAUMAN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
UNPUBLISHED
St Clair Circuit Court LC No. 18-002223-FC.
Before: Sima G. Patel, P.J., and Mark J. Cavanagh and James Robert Redford, JJ.
During the early morning hours of August 24, 2018, defendant broke into the apartment of his then-wife, Ashly Reifert;[1] shot and killed Reifert's boyfriend Joel Wood; and shot, but did not fatally wound, Reifert and her neighbor, Timothy Fuester. At trial, defendant's theory was he was depressed and took too much Xanax on the day of the shootings, which resulted in him being legally insane. The jury rejected his defense theory, and defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, MCL 750.316(1); two counts of assault with intent to commit murder (AWIM), MCL 750.83; first-degree home invasion, MCL 750.110a(2); and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for his first-degree murder conviction, 18 to 55 years' imprisonment for each of his AWIM convictions, 7 to 20 years' imprisonment for his first-degree home invasion conviction, and two years' imprisonment for his felony-firearm conviction.
Defendant contends he is entitled to a new trial because (a) the jury was improperly instructed it did not have to reach a unanimous verdict regarding whether defendant committed first-degree premeditated murder or first-degree felony murder and trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the error; (b) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress defendant's statements to police under Miranda;[2] (c) trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress evidence from defendant's cell phone because the warrant was insufficient; and (d) these cumulative errors resulted in a violation of defendant's right to a fair trial. Finding no error warranting reversal, we affirm.
Defendant and Reifert began having marital issues in 2017. At about the same time, Reifert began having an affair with Wood. Defendant and Reifert briefly attempted to repair their relationship in 2017, but Reifert filed for divorce in May 2018. Reifert moved out and into her own apartment in June 2018. Defendant expressed belief there was still an opportunity Reifert would forgo the divorce and they would rekindle their relationship. He tried to remain affectionate with Reifert, and consistently contacted her via cell phone calls and text messages. Because Reifert feared defendant, she attempted to be kind, but always rebuffed the advances. Defendant also attempted to control Reifert by various means. Eventually, defendant began to suspect Reifert was seeing another man. She denied it, despite dating Wood. Reifert testified she believed defendant would have killed her if he found out she was dating another man. Defendant admitted that he rang Reifert's doorbell late at night on at least one occasion because he wanted to know who was at the apartment with Reifert. In August 2018, defendant purchased a tracking device and attached it to Reifert's vehicle. He also searched the Internet for covert ways to break into an apartment with an electronic keypad lock, such as Reifert's. Defendant eventually discovered that Reifert was dating Wood. Defendant sent a text message to a friend specifically identifying Wood as the man Reifert was dating. About the same time, defendant purchased an Alcatel brand cell phone, which he only used to call Wood from a number not traceable to defendant.
On August 23, 2018, Reifert and Wood went on a date to a comedy show and then to dinner at an Applebee's restaurant. Defendant followed their path on the tracking device. When he got out of work at about 11:00 p.m., defendant went to the restaurant. But defendant did not confront them in the restaurant or in the parking lot. Instead, defendant drove back home, changed into running shoes, and again checked the tracking device. It showed that Reifert was back at her apartment. Defendant retrieved his .38-caliber Taurus handgun and ammunition. The weapon was a gift to defendant from Reifert. He drove to Reifert's apartment, parked about a block away, and approached the building on foot in the early morning hours of August 24, 2018. Reifert and Wood were engaged intimately at the time. Defendant claimed he heard sexual moans from Reifert when he was outside of the building. Defendant said after hearing those sounds he loaded the murder weapon. Defendant then kicked in the door to Reifert's apartment. Reifert and Wood heard the bang from the door being kicked in and got out of bed. Defendant went directly to the bedroom, saw Reifert and Wood naked, and shot Wood in the chest. Wood rushed defendant and wrestled for the gun. Reifert tried to stop defendant, but eventually ran outside. Wood was shot two more times in the bedroom, one of which struck his spine and caused him to collapse. Defendant then reloaded his handgun in the bedroom, shot Wood once more in the back of the head, and then walked out of the apartment.
While outside, Reifert attempted to get help from her neighbor, Fuester. Before she could successfully do that, though, she was spotted by defendant. As she ran from defendant around the building, Reifert noted Fuester was standing outside of his door, having been awoken by Reifert ringing his doorbell. As Reifert ran towards Fuester's door, she asked him for help. Defendant came around the corner with his gun. Fuester, who also was carrying a gun, fired a warning shot away from defendant, hoping to scare him off. Defendant continued his approach, firing his gun three times. Reifert was struck twice, one of which entered her chest cavity and punctured her lung. Fuester was shot in his thigh, just above his knee. Defendant fled the scene, and Fuester called 911.
After making sure he avoided being spotted by emergency personnel responding to the crime scene, defendant drove off. He withdrew funds from an automated teller machine (ATM) and drove to Detroit, Michigan. Defendant also posted on Facebook, hinting he had killed the man who was sleeping with his wife. Defendant contacted several people, including his mother, and confessed to killing Wood. Eventually, defendant called 911, which connected to the Detroit dispatch. During a more-than-three-hour telephone conversation with police, defendant admitted he killed Wood and expressed several times that he was considering suicide. The police convinced defendant to turn himself in. Defendant claimed he was on his way to the police station when he stopped for gas, was identified by officers, and was arrested. During the car ride to the jail, defendant made incriminating statements to the officers in the patrol car. When he got to jail, defendant waived his rights under Miranda and made similar incriminating statements to Sergeant Steve Surman.
Defendant was charged with the crimes of which he ultimately was convicted. The felony information indicated defendant was being charged with first-degree premeditated murder or first-degree felony murder. The underlying felony for the felony murder charge was first-degree home invasion. Before trial, defendant notified the prosecution of his intent to seek an insanity defense. Defendant also moved to suppress his statements to police, arguing he was too impaired from his use of Xanax, a drug he was prescribed for anxiety, to make a voluntary confession. The trial court disagreed and denied the motion. At trial, defendant supported his claim of insanity with his own testimony and that of a psychiatrist. Pertinently, defendant's theory was he was depressed as a result of his marriage ending and took too much Xanax on the day of the shootings, which resulted in him being legally insane.
The trial court instructed the jury it had to unanimously determine if defendant was guilty of first-degree murder, but it was silent on whether the jury was required to unanimously agree whether defendant committed first-degree felony murder or first-degree premeditated murder. The jury, after brief deliberations, returned a verdict of guilty as charged of all the crimes. This appeal followed. While it was pending, defendant moved the trial court for a new trial or a Ginther[3]hearing on the basis of the same arguments now raised in this appeal. The trial court denied the motion. The case is now before us for plenary review.
Defendant contends he is entitled to a new trial because the jury was not properly instructed to reach a unanimous verdict regarding whether defendant committed first-degree premeditated murder or first-degree felony murder. We disagree.
Defendant's substantive challenge to the jury instructions and the verdict form has been waived by trial counsel's express approval of them. A claim regarding jury instructions is preserved "by challenging [that] aspect of the jury instructions in the trial court." People v Czuprynski, 325 Mich.App. 449, 466; 926 N.W.2d 282 (2018). Defendant objected to two jury instruction issues but neither of them related to how the jury-verdict form listed first-degree murder nor the trial court's unanimity instruction. After the trial court read the instructions, trial counsel stated the defense had no objections to the instructions as given. Because defendant did not object to the issue now challenged on appeal, it is unpreserved. Id. Indeed, as argued by the prosecution, considering trial counsel's express approval of the jury instructions as given, we find the general challenge to the jury-verdict form and instructions waived. See People v Kowalski, 489 Mich. 488,...
To continue reading
Request your trial