People v. Clark

• Decision Date: 28 March 2023
• Docket Number: SC 164800,(95),COA 352874
• Parties: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee, v. BRADLEY NOLAN CLARK, Defendant-Appellee/ Cross-Appellant.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

1

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant/ Cross-Appellee, v. BRADLEY NOLAN CLARK, Defendant-Appellee/ Cross-Appellant.

Nos. SC 164800, (95)

COA 352874

Supreme Court of Michigan

March 28, 2023

Wayne CC: 18-008627-FH

Elizabeth T. Clement, Chief Justice Brian K. Zahra David F Viviano Richard H. Bernstein Megan K. Cavanagh Elizabeth M Welch Kyra H. Bolden, Justices

ORDER

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 21, 2022 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant are considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE Part IV of the judgment of the Court of Appeals and REINSTATE the defendant's convictions and sentences. As noted by Court of Appeals Judge Letica in dissent, the prosecution presented sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer that the defendant possessed the corrupt intent required to sustain a conviction for the common-law offense of misconduct in office. See MCL 750.505; People v Perkins, 468 Mich. 448, 456 (1999). Minimal circumstantial evidence will suffice to establish a defendant's state of mind. People v Magnant, 508 Mich. 151, 179 (2021). In reversing the misconduct-in-office conviction, the Court of Appeals majority credited the defendant's testimony that he and his fellow police officers honestly but mistakenly believed that exigent circumstances justified their entry into the victim's home without consent or a warrant. Other evidence, however, indicated that the defendant did not act in good faith, including the victim's testimony, the body-camera footage, and the false statements in the police report written by the defendant. "[A] reviewing court is required to draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in support of the jury verdict." People v Oros, 502 Mich. 229, 239 (2018) (emphasis in original). The Court of Appeals majority erred by failing to do so.

We also VACATE Part V of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, which addressed the defendant's claim of judicial misconduct. The Court of Appeals majority did not undertake a complete analysis of the totality-of-the-circumstances test set forth in People v Stevens, 498 Mich. 162, 171-172 (2015) but instead relied upon its erroneous finding of insufficient evidence as proof that the trial judge must have improperly influenced the jury. We therefore REMAND this case to the...