People v. Castillo

• Decision Date: 18 May 2023
• Docket Number: 360753
• Parties: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCO FRANKLIN CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

1

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARCO FRANKLIN CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 360753

Court of Appeals of Michigan

May 18, 2023

UNPUBLISHED

Huron Circuit Court LC No. 2020-306549-FH

Before: LETICA, P.J., and BORRELLO and RIORDAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals as of right his jury-trial conviction and sentence for assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder, MCL 750.84. The trial court sentenced defendant, as a second-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.10, to 18 months to 15 years' imprisonment. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred by (1) improperly admitting certain evidence, (2) improperly instructing the jury, and (3) improperly scoring offense variable (OV) 7 during sentencing. Defendant also claims numerous instances of ineffective assistance by his trial counsel. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant's conviction and sentence arise from a fight between he and Michael Bucholtz on April 28, 2020, at Bucholtz's home. Each claimed self-defense and asserted that the other started the fight. At the time, Bucholtz was allowing defendant to stay in a bedroom of his home. Defendant moved in with Bucholtz sometime in the weeks before the April 2020 fight. However, their relationship soon soured, with the issues between them ultimately culminating in the fight. Both defendant and Bucholtz admitted that, during this incident each attacked the other with a blunt object, with defendant using a baseball bat and Bucholtz using a metal pipe and chain. Bucholtz was hospitalized and suffered significant injuries from the fight.

The jury initially was unable to reach a unanimous verdict but after the court gave a deadlock jury instruction, it deliberated further and found defendant guilty of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder. The trial court sentenced defendant as described earlier.

As relevant here, the trial court assessed defendant 50 points under OV 7 for aggravated physical abuse. This appeal followed.

II. ANALYSIS

A. ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE

Defendant argues that the trial court erred by admitting (1) the photographs of Bucholtz's home taken by Marna Adamets, Bucholtz's girlfriend, well after the fight took place, and (2) a damaged ceiling light fixture collected from the home over a year later. We disagree.

Ordinarily, "[t]he decision whether to admit evidence is within the trial court's discretion, which will be reversed only where there is an abuse of discretion." People v Gursky, 486 Mich. 596, 606; 786 N.W.2d 579 (2010). "A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision falls outside the range of principled outcomes." People v Feezel, 486 Mich. 184, 192; 783 N.W.2d 67 (2010) (quotation marks and citation omitted). However, because defendant did not object at trial to admission of the evidence he now challenges on appeal, this issue is unpreserved for review. See People v Thorpe, 504 Mich. 230, 252; 934 N.W.2d 693 (2019). Unpreserved evidentiary issues are reviewed for plain error affecting substantial rights. Id. at 252. To establish entitlement to relief under plain-error review,

three requirements must be met: 1) error must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights. The third requirement generally requires a showing of prejudice, i.e., that the error affected the outcome of the lower court proceedings.... Reversal is warranted only when the plain, forfeited error resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or when an error seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings[] independent of the defendant's innocence. [People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750, 763-764; 597 N.W.2d 130 (1999) (quotation marks and citations omitted).]

According to defendant, the evidence at issue was unreliable and, therefore, unduly prejudicial and inadmissible under MRE 403. Defendant claims that the photographs were unreliable because they were not taken by police while investigating the scene, but instead Adamets took the photos after the police left Bucholtz's home. Defendant argues that there "was no indicia of reliability that Adamets did not move things, change things, remove things or in any other way alter the scene of the altercation before taking her photographs," and that the pictures were "overwhelming prejudicial" because Adamets had a clear motive to present the scene favorably for Bucholtz. Defendant argues that the light fixture was similarly unreliable because it was collected by police over a year after the April 2020 fight and anything, including new or additional damage, could have happened to the light fixture during this intervening period.

Defendant concedes that the photographs and light fixture may have been relevant under MRE 401. However, defendant claims that "the manner in which they were obtained by law enforcement through a third party with motive to skew the facts in favor of [Bucholtz] put their reliability and authenticity into question." Defendant, given these alleged evidentiary defects and because his and Bucholtz's credibility were key to this case, asserts that the jury likely gave undue or preemptive weight to this evidence. Defendant argues, therefore, that the trial court plainly erred by improperly admitting this evidence, which cast him in an extremely negative light and suggested to the jury that he was a violent person.

In Michigan, challenges to the authenticity of evidence involve two related, but distinct, questions. The first question is whether the evidence has been authenticated-whether there is sufficient reason to believe that the evidence is what its proponent claims for purposes of admission into evidence. The second question is whether the evidence is actually authentic or genuine-whether the evidence is, in fact, what its proponent claims for purposes of evidentiary weight and reliability. [Mitchell v Kalamazoo Anesthesiology, PC, 321 Mich.App. 144, 154; 908 N.W.2d 319 (2017) (emphasis omitted).]

"The first question is reserved solely for the trial judge. In the role as evidentiary gatekeeper, the trial judge must make the initial determination of whether the evidence is admissible-a question that depends, among other things, on whether the evidence can be authenticated." Id. at 154-155. To authenticate evidence, its proponent must only offer "evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what its proponent claims." Id. at 155 (quotation marks and citation omitted). See also MRE 901(a). "[E]vidence supporting authentication may be direct or circumstantial and need not be free of all doubt." Mitchell, 321 Mich.App. at 155.

"Once the proponent of the evidence has made th[is] prima facie showing, the evidence is authenticated under MRE 901(a) and may be submitted to the jury." Id.

[T]he second question-the weight or reliability (if any) given to the evidence-is reserved solely to the fact-finder .... When a bona fide dispute regarding the genuineness of evidence is presented, that issue is for the jury, not the trial court. Accordingly, the parties may submit evidence and argument, pro and con, to the jury regarding whether the authenticated evidence is, in fact, genuine and reliable. [Id. at 156.]

Relatedly, this Court has stated that for real evidence, like the light fixture at issue here, "an adequate foundation for admission requires testimony first that the object offered is the object which was involved in the incident, and further that the condition of the object is substantially unchanged." People v Kemp, 99 Mich.App. 485, 489; 298 N.W.2d 1 (1980) (quotation marks and citation omitted).^[1] "A proper foundation for the admission of photographs is made if someone who is familiar from personal observation of the scene or person photographed testifies that the photograph is an accurate representation of the scene or person." In re Robinson, 180 Mich.App. 454, 460; 447 N.W.2d 765 (1989). "Photographs are admissible despite changes in the condition of the scene or person where a person testifies as to the extent of the changes." Id. at 460-461.

Furthermore, relevant evidence is generally admissible. See MRE 402; People v Starr, 457 Mich. 490, 497; 577 N.W.2d 673 (1998). Evidence is relevant if it has "any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." MRE 401. But, even if the evidence is relevant and otherwise admissible under MRE 401 and MRE 402, a trial court may exclude evidence "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence." MRE 403; see also Feezel, 486 Mich. at 198.

Assessing probative value against prejudicial effect requires a balancing of several factors, including the time required to present the evidence and the possibility of delay, whether the evidence is needlessly cumulative, how directly the evidence tends to prove the fact for which it is offered, how essential the fact sought to be proved is to the case, the potential for confusing or misleading the jury, and whether the fact can be proved in another manner without as many harmful collateral effects. [People v Blackston, 481 Mich. 451, 462; 751 N.W.2d 408 (2008).]

"Unfair prejudice may exist where there is a danger that the evidence will be given undue or preemptive weight by the jury or where it would be inequitable to allow use of the evidence." Id.

While defendant faults the trial court for admitting the photographs and the light fixture because...