People v. Dixon-Bey
Decision Date | 26 September 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 331499,331499 |
Citation | 909 N.W.2d 458,321 Mich.App. 490 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dawn Marie DIXON-BEY, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Bill Schuette, Attorney General, Aaron D. Lindstrom, Solicitor General, Jerard M. Jarzynka, Prosecuting Attorney, and Jerrold Schrotenboer, Chief Appellate Attorney, for the people.
Strauss & Strauss, PLLC (by Gary David Strauss ) for defendant.
Before: O'Brien, P.J., and Hoekstra and Boonstra, JJ.
O'Brien, P.J.Defendant, Dawn Marie Dixon-Bey, was arrested after admittedly stabbing her boyfriend, Gregory Stack (the victim), to death in their home on February 14, 2015. At first, she claimed that the victim must have been stabbed during an altercation with others before returning to their home. Later, however, defendant admitted that she was the person who stabbed the victim but claimed that she had only done so in self-defense. She was subsequently charged with first-degree murder, MCL 750.316, and, after an eight-day jury trial, was found guilty of second-degree murder, MCL 750.317. She was sentenced to 35 to 70 years in prison and appeals as of right. On appeal, defendant argues that she was deprived of her constitutional right to a fair trial, that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence about defendant's attempts to prevent the victim's daughter from having custody of her half-sister (the biological daughter of the victim and defendant), that she was deprived of her constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel, that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence about a previous occasion on which she had stabbed the victim, and that resentencing is required because the trial court unreasonably departed from the advisory minimum sentence guidelines range. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm defendant's conviction but vacate her sentence and remand for resentencing.
As indicated, defendant argues on appeal, in part, that she was deprived of her constitutional right to a fair trial. Generally, she takes issue with the trial court's decision to qualify Detective Gary Schuette as an expert in interpreting evidence at a homicide scene. Specifically, she argues that she was deprived of her constitutional right to a fair trial because the trial court erroneously permitted Detective Schuette "to essentially tell the jury that [defendant]'s claim of self-defense was a sham based on his expertise." Defendant asserts that Detective Schuette was not permitted to offer that opinion because he "was not qualified as an expert in behavioral science with regard to how people engaged in self-defense are expected to act," because "his small sampling from personal experience would not support a peer-based review of experts," because his "testimony was speculative," and because the testimony "foreclosed any possibility that the jury would believe that Dawn acted in self-defense." While we agree with defendant's position that the admission of some of Detective Schuette's testimony was erroneous, we do not agree that reversal is required because defendant has not demonstrated that the admission of the testimony was outcome-determinative.
People v. Steele , 283 Mich.App. 472, 480, 769 N.W.2d 256 (2009) (citations omitted). "A trial court abuses its discretion when it selects an outcome that does not fall within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes." People v. Young , 276 Mich.App. 446, 448, 740 N.W.2d 347 (2007). "Questions whether a defendant was denied a fair trial, or deprived of his liberty without due process of law, are reviewed de novo." Steele , 283 Mich.App. at 478, 769 N.W.2d 256. A trial court's interpretation and application of a court rule, like a statute, is reviewed de novo. People v. Valeck , 223 Mich.App. 48, 50, 566 N.W.2d 26 (1997).
At issue in this case are MRE 701 and 702, which govern the admissibility of opinion testimony. MRE 701 governs the admissibility of opinion testimony by lay witnesses:
If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are (a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.
MRE 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony:
If the court determines that scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise if (1) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
As this Court has recognized before, the interplay between MRE 701 and MRE 702 is somewhat unclear when a police officer provides testimony based on his or her training and experience. See People v. Dobek , 274 Mich.App. 58, 77, 732 N.W.2d 546 (2007) (). In Dobek , the prosecution offered the testimony of a police officer, Bruce Leach, "regarding delayed disclosure" in sexual-assault cases "as simply a police officer giving lay testimony based on his training and experience without ... being first qualified as an expert, while suggesting to the jury that Leach was an expert on the subject." Id . at 76, 732 N.W.2d 546. The trial court ruled that the testimony was admissible as lay testimony and instructed the jury as such. Id . at 76–77, 732 N.W.2d 546. On appeal, defendant challenged this ruling, arguing that this testimony required that the police officer be qualified as an expert. Id . at 76, 732 N.W.2d 546.
This Court analyzed the issue as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Abcumby-Blair
...imposed is more proportionate to the offense and the offender than a different sentence would have been." People v. Dixon-Bey , 321 Mich. App. 490, 525, 909 N.W.2d 458 (2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Factors to consider when determining "whether a departure sentence is more p......
-
People v. Clark
... ... reasonably decide that defendant lied in his police report ... about what occurred at the Pembroke address. It is ... well-established that "[a] jury may infer consciousness ... of guilty from evidence of lying or deception." ... People v Dixon-Bey , 321 Mich.App. 490, 509-510; 909 ... N.W.2d 458 (2017) (quotation marks and citation omitted; ... alternation in original) ... Making ... credibility determinations in support of the jury's ... verdict, a reasonable juror could conclude that ... ...
-
People v. Lampe
...on appeal is abuse of discretion." People v. Steanhouse , 500 Mich. 453, 471, 902 N.W.2d 327 (2017) ; see also People v. Dixon-Bey , 321 Mich. App. 490, 520, 909 N.W.2d 458 (2017), oral argument ordered on the application 501 Mich. 1066, 910 N.W.2d 303 (2018). A sentence is unreasonable—and......
-
People v. Haynes, 350125
...whether those facts violated the defendant's right to the effective assistance of counsel is reviewed de novo. People v. Dixon-Bey , 321 Mich.App. 490, 515, 909 N.W.2d 458 (2017). Defendant, however, failed to obtain an evidentiary hearing to expand the record, so there are no factual findi......