People v. Conner-Washington
| Docket Number | 354941 |
| Decision Date | 21 December 2021 |
| Parties | PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BRIANNA CONNER-WASHINGTON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
UNPUBLISHED
Macomb Circuit Court LC No. 2019-001216-FC
Before: Boonstra, P.J., and Gleicher and Letica, JJ.
Defendant appeals as of right her jury trial conviction of second-degree murder, MCL 750.317. Defendant was sentenced to 18 to 50 years' imprisonment. We affirm.
This case arises out of an incident where defendant stabbed and killed the victim, Maurice Carpenter, her 24-year-old former boyfriend. For about six months, the pair had been in an on-again/off-again dating relationship, but the victim had moved on to a new relationship.
On Friday, March 8, 2019, the victim posted an Instagram story showing himself enjoying some alcohol. The victim's current female companion was heard in the background.
Later defendant and the victim exchanged a series of text messages. At 10:12 p.m. defendant expressed surprise regarding their relationship status as she thought they were "working to get us back on track," followed up with "[y]ou one cold mf[.]" The victim responded they were just "friends," and he questioned whether he had actually said they were "back together." Defendant retorted it had not been a month and the victim was moving on while she "struggle[d] to sleep." Defendant added that "[i]f [the victim had] never hurt[] [her] before," he "spit in [her] face on this one," and she accused him of infidelity from the inception of their relationship.
Defendant attempted to call the victim, but he did not answer. Defendant soon texted him: When the victim still failed to respond, defendant texted him about that as well. The victim answered, cautioning defendant that she had "tak[en] it to[o] far[.]" Defendant replied she had not and she continued to complain about how the victim had treated her, "gas[s]ing [her] up with one drinking liquor [she had] paid for with . . . [an]other b***h." Defendant wrote that the victim was "cold[-]hearted to a dam[n] person who never did anything to[] [him][.]"
By 10:47 p.m., defendant texted "[w]hen I pull up[, ] come outside" and, seconds later, that she was "15 min[ute]s away[.]" In part, the victim replied "[D]on't come [to] my crib." Defendant responded, "I'm coming." The victim countered with "[d]on't know for what" and "I hope you know I'm not playing." Defendant replied "I hope you know I'm not []either." The victim again told defendant "don't come to my crib[.]"
At 10:57 p.m., defendant called Daviyon Gordon, the victim's roommate, who called defendant back about four minutes later. Throughout their six-minute conversation, defendant was angry and accusatory. Defendant told Gordon, "I'm coming with all the smoke," which Gordon understood to mean that defendant intended to "hurt," "kill," or otherwise harm the victim. Immediately after the call ended, a panicked Gordon called the victim to relay defendant's threat. The victim then called defendant at 11:10 p.m.
At 11:11 p.m., defendant arrived, and Ryan Pitts, another one of the victim's roommates, overheard the former couple verbally arguing outside. In part, defendant screamed at Pitts: "[B]ring that b***h outside the house."[1] The pair's loud argument continued for several minutes.
Gordon, who was at a nearby home, tried to call the victim without success. Gordon then called Pitts, who missed his call, but called him back within minutes, reporting that the former couple was arguing. Pitts noted that defendant's car was leaving. Gordon and Pitts then planned to meet up and walked back to Pitts's room.
Gordon and Pitts noticed that defendant's car was gone, but once upstairs, they heard it pull up and park. Although Gordon did not see either defendant or the victim; Pitts saw both of them. Thinking everything was normal or that the former couple would resolve their issues, Pitts and Gordon were chatting until they heard someone "gasping for air." Gordon went to the window and saw defendant's rear driver's side door was open. The door closed and defendant's car sped off. Gordon immediately tried to call the victim without success at 11:20 p.m.
At 11:23 p.m., defendant sought help for the victim at a nearby hospital. While there, defendant told the hospital security guard that she and the victim had had a verbal altercation. Defendant further reported that the victim "had pulled her hair[]" and "ripped . . . her necklace" from her neck, causing her to leave. She then returned to find the victim stabbed.
Another hospital employee noticed defendant visibly upset and crying.[2] Defendant explained she and the victim were "exes." Defendant had driven the victim to the hospital and asked how he was doing, which the employee could not answer. Defendant then shared that she had driven to the victim's home and he had "attacked" her. More specifically, defendant disclosed that the victim had pulled her hair and she showed the employee the back of her head. The employee observed that the victim's hair weave had been pulled out or her hair had been "torn a little bit." Defendant further reported that the victim had punched her, but she did not specify where, and the employee did not notice any injury. Defendant also indicated that the victim had pulled off her necklace and claimed a history of domestic violence. It struck the employee as odd that defendant indicated that she did not want to press charges.
Hoping to aid the victim's trauma surgeon, the employee asked how the victim had been stabbed. Defendant replied that it must have been the sharp car door, but she also repeatedly stated that she did not mean to harm the victim. The employee told defendant that she wanted to speak with the doctors and would return. Defendant nodded, but, minutes later, she was gone by the time that the employee returned with a resident because those attempting to treat the victim dismissed defendant's sharp car door theory as the source of the victim's injury.
The victim later died from a single, deep stab wound to his abdomen. The wound was ¾" in length and at least 1½" deep. The pathologist explained that her measurement of the wound's depth was just an estimate given the surgical intervention required to treat the victim's injuries. As it turned out, the knife used to stab the victim lacerated significant veins located in front of his spine, emptying blood into his abdominal cavity.
The police soon focused on defendant, who had shared her first name and telephone number with the hospital employee. The following morning, the police located defendant and arrested her. Defendant agreed to waive her constitutional rights and a 3½-hour videotaped interview, with some breaks, was recorded. The videotape was not admitted into evidence, but the interviewing detective testified about what occurred. During the interview, defendant's version of the events changed significantly.
Defendant initially claimed she went to the victim's home, where they argued over a necklace and some money he owed her. The victim pushed her, told her to leave, broke her necklace [3] and punched her in the mouth. Defendant described being surprised by the victim's physical violence. Although the pair argued and sometimes pushed each other, defendant repeatedly stated that the victim never struck or punched her before that night.
After the physical assault, the victim gave defendant the money that he owed her and she departed on good terms. About 15 minutes later, the victim called defendant, and, in a weak voice, requested help. Defendant returned to find him lying on the ground. He told her "they stabbed me" and she drove him to the hospital.
The detective confronted defendant with her earlier claim to the hospital employee that the victim had fallen into the car door. Defendant denied making that statement and claimed that she left the hospital after telling the employee she was going to work; however, her true reason for leaving was that she feared the victim's family would come to the hospital. Defendant continued to deny that she had stabbed the victim.
When the detective suggested that the cameras at the victim's complex did not show anyone else had stabbed him, defendant responded that, if the camera showed that, she would "take it." Defendant said that she "was going to be honest" and was "not lying." Defendant then said that the victim "just collapsed," when they were arguing. This changed to the victim telling defendant that she "poked" him.
When the detective asked what defendant had used to cut the victim, she described box cutters that she used at work. The detective thought that implement was inconsistent with the nature of the victim's wound. And, in fact, the police obtained a search warrant to search defendant's vehicle, which appeared to have been recently washed and cleaned, and was missing its rear driver's side floormat. The police retrieved a pair of box cutters and determined that they were inconsistent with the victim's wound. The detective then informed defendant that there was "no way" the box cutters caused the victim's wound. Defendant acknowledged that there was a small chance that she had used something else, before again insisting that it was a box cutter.
As defendant repeated her story, she failed to mention being punched. This caused the detective to question her on that point as defendant had insisted that the victim punched her with sufficient force to loosen a tooth and a bracket from her braces. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial