People v. Davis
| Decision Date | 02 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 343432,343432 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Wayne DAVIS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Dana Nessel, Attorney General, Fadwa A. Hammoud, Solicitor General, David S. Leyton, Prosecuting Attorney, and Rebecca Jurva-Brinn, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
State Appellate Defender (by Jacqueline J. McCann and Steven D. Helton) for defendant.
Before: Swartzle, P.J., and Markey and Redford, JJ.
Markey, J. Defendant appeals by right his convictions of first-degree felony murder, MCL 750.316(1)(b) ; first-degree premeditated murder, MCL 750.316(1)(a) ; four counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b ; assault with intent to rob while armed, MCL 750.89 ; felon in possession of a firearm, MCL 750.224f ; and felon in possession of ammunition, MCL 750.224f(6). Defendant was sentenced as a third-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.11, to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for the first-degree murder conviction (alternate theories), two years’ imprisonment for each of the felony-firearm convictions, 25 to 50 years’ imprisonment for the assault conviction, and 5 to 10 years’ imprisonment for each of the felon-in-possession convictions. On appeal, defendant contends that he was denied his constitutional right to a public trial and that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence an e-mail defendant had sent to a detective. Because we conclude that the trial court did not close the courtroom to the public the second day of trial and because we find the admission of the e-mail did not constitute error that requires reversal, we affirm.
On April 27, 2016, a security officer working at an apartment complex saw a running car parked outside the complex. When the security officer approached the parked car, he saw the victim, Devante Hanson, sitting in the driver's seat. The security officer could see that Hanson had blood on his chest and called 911. When police officers arrived, Hanson was pronounced dead, and it was determined that Hanson had suffered gunshot wounds
.
Video surveillance from the apartment complex showed two men, purportedly Spencer Holiday and defendant, entering Hanson's car. Holiday sat in the front passenger seat and defendant sat in the back passenger seat behind the driver's seat, which was occupied by Hanson. Hanson exited the car, went to the trunk of the vehicle, and then returned to the driver's seat. The video footage showed that there was a lot of movement in the car, after which both Holiday and defendant left the vehicle and went back into the apartment complex. They proceeded through the lobby and subsequently entered another nearby apartment complex.
Holiday, who accepted a plea offer in exchange for his testimony against defendant, stated that on the date of the homicide, Holiday was with defendant in defendant's apartment when defendant told Holiday that he was looking for someone to rob. When Holiday left the apartment to buy marijuana and cigarettes, defendant accompanied Holiday. Holiday told defendant that Hanson was going to meet them and sell them some marijuana.
Holiday testified that when Hanson arrived, defendant and Holiday climbed into Hanson's car. Defendant, sitting in the backseat, pulled out a gun and demanded money and marijuana from Hanson. According to Holiday, Hanson grabbed defendant's gun, and defendant shot Hanson. After defendant shot Hanson, he pointed his gun at Holiday and told him to shoot Hanson or else defendant would shoot Holiday.
Holiday acknowledged that he then shot Hanson in the ribs.
On February 21, 2018, the first day of trial, jury voir dire was conducted, a jury was selected, and the trial court gave the jurors their preliminary instructions. On February 22, opening statements were made and the prosecution presented three witnesses before a break for lunch. After the last morning witness was called but before the court recessed for the lunch hour, the following colloquy between the trial court and counsel took place:
During the break, a woman who identified herself as Daundria Frye and the mother of Hanson's child, made contact with a member of the jury. When court reconvened, the following is reflected in the trial transcript:
The jury then heard from two witnesses on the afternoon of February 22, 2018. On February 27 and 28, during two full days of trial, the jury heard from 11 prosecution witnesses and one defense witness. On March 1, closing arguments were presented, the jury was given final instructions, and verdicts were returned. Except for Hanson's mother, there is no indication any other spectators attended the trial from the afternoon on the second day of trial until the verdicts were returned.
Defendant was convicted as indicated and filed his claim of appeal. Defendant subsequently moved for remand, requesting the case be remanded for an evidentiary hearing and to allow defendant the opportunity to file a motion for new trial on a variety of issues. This Court granted the motion in part, remanding the case to the trial court "to expand the factual record regarding its decision to close the trial to all members of the public except for the victim's mother, and to allow defendant to file a motion for new trial based on his claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the court's decision." People v. Davis , unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered November 13, 2018 (Docket No. 343432).
The record reflects that on February 21, 2016, the first day of trial, the court was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Baham
... ... The child was left with [respondent's] dad a lot apparently and left with other people and she appears to have some issues when she is stressed and possibly some developmental problems herself and certainly did not have great parenting ... ...