People v. Coy
Decision Date | 10 January 2001 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 217707. |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Laurence Deane COY II, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, Susan K. Mladenoff, Prosecuting Attorney, and Jennifer Kay Clark, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
State Appellate Defender (by Peter Jon Van Hoek), for the defendant on appeal.
Before TALBOT, P.J., and HOOD and GAGE, JJ.
Defendant Laurence D. Coy, II, was charged with open murder. MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548. After a jury trial, defendant was convicted of second-degree murder, M.C.L. § 750.317; MSA 28.549. The trial court sentenced defendant as a third-offense habitual offender,1 M.C.L. § 769.11; MSA 28.1083, to forty to sixty years' imprisonment. Defendant appeals as of right. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
The victim and her young son shared a Battle Creek apartment with Kristina McKee and her two sons. Between 3:00 and 3:30 a.m. on January 5, 1998, McKee returned home from work and discovered the victim's body lying on the bloodstained floor of the victim's bedroom. An autopsy revealed that the victim had suffered twenty-five to thirty stab wounds, including slashes to her head, face, neck, torso, hands and arms, and four deep and parallel blade penetrations through her back and lung. The victim also had two black eyes and more bruising near her chin and left arm. Police found in the victim's bedroom some blood on the bedroom door and doorknob, the victim's bloodstained bedding, a bloody pen on the floor near the victim, and a broken, bloody steak knife blade. Police detected no indication that anyone had broken into the victim's apartment.
The police investigated several possible suspects. Defendant became a suspect because he and the victim had occasionally engaged in sexual intercourse, and defendant had visited the apartment several times each week. The police also discovered after the murder that defendant had cuts on his right hand that required emergency room treatment. Subsequent laboratory testing revealed that the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) properties contained sperm cells removed from the victim's body appeared to match defendant's DNA profile.2 The prosecutor also introduced evidence that defendant's DNA profile was consistent with a mixed blood sample detected on the broken knife blade and the victim's bedroom doorknob. Despite defendant's presentation of several alibi witnesses, the jury, after deliberating for several days and requesting and obtaining review of the testimony of the prosecutor's DNA expert witness, found defendant guilty of second-degree murder.
Defendant first contends that the prosecutor improperly solicited testimony from the DNA expert witness regarding the possible presence of defendant's blood on the broken knife blade and the doorknob without offering any accompanying statistical evidence that clarified the significance of the possible DNA match. Defendant's contention raises an evidentiary issue, which issue the prosecutor initially labels unpreserved given defendant's failure to object at trial to the challenged testimony. We agree that defendant failed to properly preserve this evidentiary question. While defendant at a July 13, 1998, pretrial hearing moved to quash the information on the basis that the district court in binding over defendant considered meaningless and inadmissible DNA evidence absent some accompanying and interpretive statistical analysis,3 defendant did not timely object at trial to the DNA expert's testimony. MRE 103(a)(1); People v. Furman, 158 Mich.App. 302, 329-330, 404 N.W.2d 246 (1987).
"Mere forfeiture, [however], does not extinguish an `error.'" People v. Carter, 462 Mich. 206, 215, 612 N.W.2d 144 (2000). An appellate court properly may review forfeited claims of error when the forfeited claim involves a plain error affecting the defendant's substantial rights. People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750, 763-764, 597 N.W.2d 130 (1999) ( ); People v. Grant, 445 Mich. 535, 547-549, 552-553, 520 N.W.2d 123 (1994). Accordingly, we will first review defendant's contention to determine whether the admission of the challenged DNA testimony constituted plain error. We note that the available record affords us an ample basis for reviewing defendant's contention.4 See People v. May field, 221 Mich.App. 656, 660, 562 N.W.2d 272 (1997)("The purpose of the appellate preservation requirements is to induce litigants to do what they can in the trial court ... to create a record of the error and its prejudice.").
Because an understanding of the character and function of DNA enhances an understanding of the nature of the instant evidentiary issue, we provide the following brief and general background:
* * *
mod on other grounds 441 Mich. 916, 497 N.W.2d 182 (1993).]
"The position that a gene occupies along the DNA thread is its locus." National Research Council, supra at 13. "In forensic work, the genotype for the group of analyzed loci is called the DNA profile." Id. at 14.
In this case, a laboratory utilized the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method of analyzing the DNA recovered from the sperm samples; the broken, bloody knife blade; the pen; hairs found on the victim's body; the bloody bedroom doorknob; and the victim's and the defendant's blood samples.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Coy
...to forty to sixty years' imprisonment. This Court reversed defendant's conviction and remanded for a new trial. People v. Coy, 243 Mich.App. 283, 620 N.W.2d 888 (2000). On retrial, a jury convicted defendant of voluntary manslaughter, M.C.L. § 750.321; he was sentenced to twenty to thirty y......
-
People v. Unger
...The nature and number of a victim's wounds may support a finding of premeditation and deliberation. See People v. Coy, 243 Mich.App. 283, 315-316, 620 N.W.2d 888 (2000); see also People v. Kelly, 231 Mich.App. 627, 642, 588 N.W.2d 480 (1998). Specifically, evidence that a victim sustained m......
-
Coy v. Renico
...statistical evidence regarding the likelihood of a match between the sample and petitioner. See People v. Coy, 243 Mich. App, 283, 286-314, 620 N.W.2d 888, 891-904 (2000) ("Coy I"). Prior to retrial, an evidentiary hearing was held by the trial court to determine the admissibility of statis......
-
People v. Steanhouse
...to permit the defendant to take a second look, may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the killing.” People v. Coy, 243 Mich.App. 283, 315, 620 N.W.2d 888 (2000). “To premeditate is to think about beforehand; to deliberate is to measure and evaluate the major facets of a choice o......
-
Table of cases
...23 Cal.4th 1153, §8:40.1 People v. Cox (2000) 23 Cal.4th 665, §1:35.1 People v. Cox (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 702, §7:20.33 People v. Coy , 620 N.W.2d 888 (Mich. App. 2001), §9:30.3 People v. Coyle (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 839, 842, §5:100.3 People v. Coyle , 88 Cal.App.2d 967, 978 (1949), §9:105......
-
Trial defense of dui in California
...of such a result, the result is insufficient to assist the trier of fact in determining any question of fact. People v. Coy , 620 N.W.2d 888 (Mich. App. 2001); Com. v. Curnin , 565 N.E.2d 440, 442-443 n.7 (Mass. 1991). Thus, the presentation of breath alcohol results in drunk driving cases ......