People v. Davis

• Decision Date: 22 March 1996
• Docket Number: Docket No. 177637
• Citation: 549 N.W.2d 1,216 Mich.App. 47
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Lee DAVIS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 1

549 N.W.2d 1

216 Mich.App. 47

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Lee DAVIS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 177637.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Jan. 11, 1996, at Lansing.

Decided March 22, 1996, at 9:10 a.m.

Released for Publication June 11, 1996.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, Brian L. Mackie, Prosecuting Attorney, and David A. King, Senior Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the People.

Christoph & Newman, P.C. by David Newman, Detroit, for defendant on appeal.

Before MARKMAN, P.J., and MURPHY and HOEKSTRA, JJ.

MARKMAN, Presiding Judge.

Defendant, aged sixty at the time, assaulted his former girlfriend (Eula Woods) and her boyfriend (Leonard Casey) at the house defendant previously shared with Woods. Defendant appeals as of right his convictions by a jury of assault with intent to inflict great bodily harm less than murder, M.C.L. § 750.84; M.S.A. § 28.279, felonious assault, M.C.L. § 750.82; M.S.A. § 28.277, and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, M.C.L. § 750.227b; M.S.A. § 28.424(2). We affirm.

Defendant first contends that the trial court prejudiced his defense by improperly questioning witnesses. With respect to the assault on Casey, defendant's theory was self-defense--that he thought Casey was an intruder, that he used a gun he stored at the house to protect himself, and that he had no duty to retreat in his own home. Defendant claims that the court's questioning of witnesses undermined his contentions that he resided at the house where the assaults occurred and that he stored a pistol there for his protection.

MRE 614(b) provides that a court "may interrogate witnesses, whether called by itself or by a party." In United States v. Dandy, 998 F.2d 1344, 1354 (C.A.6, 1993), the court considered the federal analogue to this rule and stated that a trial court should conduct a trial " 'with a view to eliciting the truth and to attaining justice between the parties.' " (Citation omitted.) The Dandy court noted three situations in which a trial court has good reason to interject itself into the trial: (1) when the trial is lengthy and complex, (2) when attorneys are unprepared or obstreperous, or if the facts become confused and neither side is able to resolve the confusion, and (3) when a witness is difficult or is not credible and the attorney fails to adequately probe the witness, or if a witness becomes confused. Id. In addition, we note that there might be situations in which attorneys for both sides avoid asking a witness a material question on the (traditional in some quarters) ground that counsel never ask a question without first knowing the answer. In these and other appropriate instances, the court may have good reason to question a witness in order to enhance the role of the criminal trial as a search for substantive truth.

The principal limitation on a court's discretion over matters of trial conduct is that its actions not pierce the veil of judicial impartiality. People v. Burgess, 153 Mich.App. 715, 719, 396 N.W.2d 814 (1986). In determining that the court's questioning of witnesses did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial, the Dandy court emphasized that the questions were posed in a neutral manner and that the trial court's comments and questions neither added to nor distorted the evidence. Dandy, supra at 1354-1355. In People v. Conyers, 194 Mich.App. 395, 404, 487 N.W.2d 787 (1992), this Court found that a trial court's excessive interference in the examination of witnesses and disparaging remarks directed at the defendant's counsel demonstrated partisanship that denied the defendant a fair trial. The Conyers Court stated at 404-405, 487 N.W.2d 787:

The trial court may question witnesses in order to clarify testimony or elicit additional relevant information. However, the trial court must exercise caution and restraint to ensure that its questions are not intimidating, argumentative, prejudicial, unfair, or partial. The test is whether the "judge's questions and comments 'may well have unjustifiably aroused suspicion in the mind of the jury' as to a witness' credibility, ... and whether partiality 'quite possibly could have influenced the jury to the detriment of defendant's case.' " [Citations omitted.]

"A trial court may not assume the prosecutor's role with advantages unavailable to the prosecution." People v. Weathersby, 204 Mich.App. 98, 109, 514 N.W.2d 493 (1994). The Dandy court noted that the fact that testimony elicited by a court's questions damaged a defendant's case did not demonstrate that the court had improperly assumed the role of surrogate prosecutor. Dandy, supra at 1354. ¹ When questions cross the line of judicial impartiality, this Court applies the harmless-error test. Weathersby, supra at 110, 514 N.W.2d 493.

Here, the trial court questioned several witnesses regarding whether defendant lived at the house where the assault occurred and whether he stored a gun in the house. Some of this questioning was in response to notes from the jury requesting that certain witnesses be questioned regarding these issues. Some of this questioning occurred after the court indicated to the parties that the evidence did not support a "no duty to retreat" instruction but that it would reserve its ruling with regard to that issue until after defendant finished presenting his case. Accordingly, the questions regarding whether defendant lived at the house and stored a gun there were relevant to issues in dispute and were intended to clarify those issues. There is no indication that the court's questions were intimidating or argumentative or that the court assumed the prosecutor's role in its questioning. While the answers to these questions may have contradicted defendant's claims, the questions themselves did not unjustifiably arouse jury suspicions regarding a witness' credibility. Nor is there any indication that the questions demonstrated prejudice, unfairness, or partiality on the court's part that might have influenced the jury. Further, the court specifically instructed the jury that its questions were not evidence. Under these circumstances, we find that the court's questioning of the witnesses was appropriate. The court's questions assisted the factfinder in getting to the truth about relevant issues. As long as the questions would be appropriate if asked by either party and, further, do not give the appearance of partiality, we believe that a trial court is free to ask questions of witnesses that assist in the search for truth. Here, the court's questions were relevant and appropriate and did not abandon its mantle of impartiality. Accordingly, the court's questioning did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.

Defendant next argues that the trial court improperly reserved ruling regarding defendant's motion for a directed verdict with respect to the charges involving Woods and that it erred in denying the motion.

Contrary to defendant's contention, the trial court did not reserve ruling with regard to defendant's motion for a directed verdict. Rather, the court denied the motion without prejudice to the defendant's ability to raise it again before jury deliberations.

To review a trial court's ruling with regard to a motion for a directed verdict, this Court considers the evidence presented in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational factfinder could find that the essential elements of the charged crimes were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Warren (After Remand), 200 Mich.App. 586, 588, 504 N.W.2d 907 (1993).

With respect to Casey, defendant was charged with assault with intent to commit murder, M.C.L. § 750.83; M.S.A. § 28.278, and felony-firearm. The elements of assault with intent to commit murder are "(1) an assault, (2) with an actual intent to kill, (3) which, if successful, would make the killing murder." Id. "The intent to kill may be proven by inference from any facts in evidence." Id. The elements of felony-firearm are that the defendant possessed a firearm during the commission or attempt to commit a felony. People v. Passeno, 195 Mich.App. 91, 97, 489 N.W.2d 152 (1992). Casey testified that defendant pointed a pistol at him, warned him not to come any closer or he would kill him, and pulled the trigger several times (but no bullets fired). This testimony was sufficient for a reasonable factfinder to find all the elements of assault with intent to commit murder and felony-firearm established beyond a reasonable doubt.

With respect to Woods, defendant was charged with felonious assault and felony-firearm. The elements of felonious assault are "(1) an assault, (2) with a dangerous weapon, and (3) with the intent to injure or place the victim in reasonable apprehension of an immediate battery." People v. Malkowski, 198 Mich.App. 610, 614, 499 N.W.2d 450 (1993). Woods testified that defendant was angry and that they got into a "tussle." She admitted that, at the preliminary examination, she had testified that defendant had a gun. At trial, she testified that she felt defendant put something against her back that she thought was a gun, but explained that she had not actually seen a gun. Casey testified that he heard a commotion, ran downstairs, and saw defendant pointing a gun toward Woods. Woods' testimony, in combination with Casey's testimony, was sufficient to establish all the elements of felonious assault and felony-firearm beyond a reasonable doubt.

Defendant next argues that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that defendant had no duty to retreat in his own home. He contends that he presented sufficient evidence that he lived at the house where the assaults occurred to justify an instruction to this effect being presented to the jury.

In People v. Daniel, 207 Mich.App. 47, 53, 523 N.W.2d 830 (1994), this Court discussed jury instructions:

...