People v. Fields
| Decision Date | 22 August 1995 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 99806,No. 7,7 |
| Citation | 538 N.W.2d 356,450 Mich. 94 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carl FIELDS, Defendant-Appellee. Calendar |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
In this case we address the propriety of a prosecutor's questions and closing argument directed to defendant's efforts to produce the woman who defendant testified had actually committed the assault against his wife for which defendant was charged and ultimately convicted. Finding no basis for the conclusion that the prosecutor's questions and comments "shifted the burden of proof" to the defendant, we reverse the Court of Appeals decision and remand the case for consideration of the issues not addressed in the original appellate decision.
During the early morning hours of June 30, 1991, Battle Creek police officers responded to a call and went to the home of defendant's wife, Ola Fields. When the officers arrived, they found Ms. Fields suffering from four nonfatal gunshot wounds: one to the right temple, one to the back of her head, one to her right shoulder, and one to her right wrist. She was alert and angrily explained that she and her husband were separated and that he had shot her because she would not allow him to move back into her house.
Ms. Fields told the officers she was sitting in the bathroom when defendant suddenly appeared in the doorway and began firing at her. He shot her three times in the bathroom and once as she fled into the living room. The police verified that there were blood splatters in the bathroom and a trail of blood drops through the living room proceeding to the house next door where Ms. Fields fled with her children.
Defendant was arrested about twenty minutes later in downtown Battle Creek. At the time of the arrest, police found a .22 caliber revolver with five spent cartridges in his pocket. Defendant volunteered to the arresting officer that he had shot his wife and that he hoped she was dead. He made a similar statement to the officer who transported him to the police station, and again to the corrections officer who inventoried his possessions. When he was later questioned by an investigating detective, defendant claimed the shooting resulted from an argument he was having with his wife over the paternity of their nine-month-old daughter. Defendant alleged that during the argument, his wife had retrieved a .22 caliber pistol that her father had given her and tried to shoot him. 1 Defendant claimed he was able to take the pistol from his wife, fired at her several times, and hoped "the bitch was dead."
Three and one-half months after the shooting, the prosecutor received an affidavit from Ola Fields and a letter and affidavit from defendant; both affidavits claimed that the shooter was not defendant but was actually Joanne Walker, a woman with whom defendant was allegedly having an affair. Defendant's letter to the prosecutor gave a Detroit address for Joanne Walker and asked the prosecutor to arrest her to clear his name. 2 The affidavits stated that Walker appeared at the door of Ms. Fields' home on the evening of the shooting to talk to defendant, that an argument ensued between Walker and Ms. Fields, and that Walker pulled out a pistol and fired several shots at Ms. Fields. Defendant claimed he was able to wrestle the pistol away from Walker, who fled, and that Ms. Fields then began accusing defendant of responsibility for the shooting because his affair with Walker had brought her to the house. Defendant claims to have left the house at that point and headed toward the police station to explain what had just transpired. He walked past the station, however, because he was not sure what he wanted to report. It was at that point that he was arrested. Defendant claims he decided to take the blame for the shooting because he did not want Walker, who was pregnant with his child, to go to jail.
At trial, Ola Fields recanted the statements made to the police officers at the time of shooting identifying defendant as the shooter, and testified consistent with her affidavit 3 that the shooter was actually Joanne Walker.
Defendant took the stand at trial, gave testimony consistent with his affidavit and letter, and recanted or denied the various statements he made following his arrest. Defendant testified that he had been having an affair with Joanne Walker for approximately six months before the shooting. He stated that he had been to Ms. Walker's Detroit apartment on one occasion and that he had seen her once or twice a week when she came to Battle Creek to visit some friends. Defendant testified that on the day before the shooting, he was supposed to meet Walker but did not, and that on the night of the shooting Walker appeared at Ms. Fields' home. According to defendant, when his wife asked Walker to leave, an argument ensued during which Walker pulled out a pistol and fired several quick shots before defendant could wrest the gun from her.
A longtime friend of defendant testified on his behalf and stated that a month or two before the shooting, he had encountered defendant in the area of a local food store. The defendant was driving his car and was accompanied by a woman the defendant introduced as Joanne Walker.
The existence of Joanne Walker was a critical issue at trial. Moreover, because defendant and his wife both testified that they had sent affidavits to the prosecutor asserting Walker's culpability and asking him to arrest her, a subtext of this issue had been introduced in the form of an inference that the prosecutor's failure to follow up on Walker's whereabouts suggested either indifference to the question of the real culprit or a vindictive prosecution. 4
During the cross-examination of defendant, the prosecutor twice sought to determine what attempts defendant made to locate Walker. 5 Defendant suggested that the prosecution should have located her.
In closing arguments, the prosecutor 6 argued that Joanne Walker did not exist, and defendant 7 argued that Joanne Walker shot Ola Fields. 8
The jury found defendant guilty of assault with intent to murder 9 and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. 10 The trial judge sentenced him to twenty-five to fifty years' imprisonment for the assault and a consecutive two-year term for the felony-firearm. 11
In the Court of Appeals, defendant argued among other things that the prosecutor impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant by questioning him about his efforts to produce Joanne Walker and by arguing to the jury that the evidence presented by defendant failed to establish that Joanne Walker existed. The Court of Appeals agreed that the prosecutor "shifted the burden of proof to defendant by allowing the jury to draw improper adverse inferences from defendant's failure to produce Walker" and, in an unpublished opinion per curiam, 12 reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a new trial. 13 The prosecutor appealed and we granted leave. 447 Mich. 895, 525 N.W.2d 457 (1994).
The prosecutor contends that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the prosecutor's questions and comments regarding the credibility of the defense theory shifted the burden of proof to defendant to prove his innocence. We agree.
Arguments involving claims that the prosecutor's questions, argument, or instructions "shifted the burden of proof" often present a confused potpourri of analytically distinct claims.
One theory on which a claim that conduct or instruction has "shifted the burden of proof" is premised, is the body of law partially relied on by defendant and the Court of Appeals 14 dealing with the propriety of arguments and the instructional inferences that can be drawn from the failure of a witness to testify at trial. As the United States Supreme Court, in Graves v. United States, 150 U.S. 118, 121, 14 S.Ct. 40, 41, 37 L.Ed. 1021 (1893), explained in dictum:
[I]f a party has it peculiarly within his power to produce [evidence or] witnesses whose testimony would elucidate the transaction, the fact that he does not do it creates the presumption that the [evidence or] testimony, if produced, would be unfavorable.
The Fifth Amendment does not prohibit instructions on otherwise permissible inferences. Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837, 93 S.Ct. 2357, 37 L.Ed.2d 380 (1973). Thus, the missing witness rule allows comment by counsel and an adverse inference instruction 15 to be given if certain conditions are fulfilled. 2 McCormick, Evidence (4th ed.), § 264, pp. 184-189. The inference is permissive and comment and instruction is allowed only when the connection between the circumstances of the case and the inference that the evidence would be adverse is so logical that the factfinder is permitted to make that connection, typically when production of the witness is peculiarly within the power of the party against whom the inference of adverse testimony is sought.
We need not address the requirements of the doctrine, however, because that rule is inapplicable to the present case. 16 The prosecutor did not argue and the jury was not instructed that it could find that Walker's testimony would have been adverse to the defense. Rather, the prosecutor's questions and comments were directed toward impeaching the defense version of the shooting by focusing the jury's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dobek
...from its exercise." People v. Foster, 175 Mich.App. 311, 318, 437 N.W.2d 395 (1989), overruled on other grounds People v. Fields, 450 Mich. 94, 115 n. 24, 538 N.W.2d 356 (1995). Defense counsel objected to the prosecutor's line of questioning, and the trial court sustained the objection. De......
-
People v. Smith
...Kelly acknowledges, the prosecutor's comments to the jury during closing argument do not constitute evidence. People v. Fields, 450 Mich. 94, 116 n. 26, 538 N.W.2d 356 (1995). Rather, to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain each of the instant convictions, this Court m......
-
People v. Caddell
...by a defendant." People v. Reid , 233 Mich. App. 457, 477, 592 N.W.2d 767 (1999). Our Supreme Court explained in People v. Fields , 450 Mich. 94, 115, 538 N.W.2d 356 (1995), that "where a defendant testifies at trial or advances, either explicitly or implicitly, an alternate theory of the c......
-
People v. McGhee
...which the defendant seeks to rely."'" People v. Reid, 233 Mich.App. 457, 478, 592 N.W.2d 767 (1999), quoting People v. Fields, 450 Mich. 94, 111 n. 21, 538 N.W.2d 356 (1995), quoting United States v. Bright, 630 F.2d 804, 825 (C.A.5, 1980). A defendant's constitutional right to remain silen......