People v. Golden
| Decision Date | 26 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | 353535 |
| Parties | PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STEVIE GOLDEN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
UNPUBLISHED
Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 18-008894-01-FC
Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Boonstra and Rick, JJ.
Defendant appeals as of right his jury trial convictions for second-degree murder, MCL 750.317, carrying a concealed weapon, MCL 750.227, felon in possession of a firearm (felon-in-possession), MCL 750.224f, felon in possession of ammunition, MCL 750.224f(3), and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm) MCL 750.227b. The trial court sentenced defendant as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.12, to 60 to 95 years' imprisonment for the second-degree murder conviction, 60 to 95 years' imprisonment for the carrying a concealed weapon conviction, 60 to 95 years' imprisonment for the felon-in-possession conviction, 60 to 95 years' imprisonment for the felon in possession of ammunition conviction, and two years' imprisonment for both felony-firearm convictions. We affirm.
This case arises out of a shooting on October 9, 2018, at a coney island in Detroit, Michigan. Defendant and the victim, Kevin Riggs, knew each other prior to the day of the shooting. Debra Boyd testified that, on the day of the shooting, she had seen defendant and Riggs have an altercation, during which Riggs demanded money from defendant. Eventually Riggs drove off in his truck, while defendant and Boyd walked to the store. While walking, they parted ways so that Boyd could go to the store to get change because she owed defendant $50. Defendant continued to walk to the coney island. Before reaching the coney island, defendant stopped at a house on the way to get a firearm from "associates." He claimed he was apprehensive and did not know what Riggs would do because Riggs was "super high."
When defendant arrived at the coney island, Riggs was in the parking lot. Defendant went into the coney island. He proceeded to pace the inside of the restaurant, checking the front door for Riggs. When Boyd started to approach the coney island, defendant walked outside with a gun in his hand covered by a bandana. Riggs approached defendant and Boyd. Boyd handed defendant the money she owed him and started to walk off. Within moments, Riggs punched defendant in the face. Riggs fell to the ground, while defendant remained standing. As Riggs stood up, defendant fatally shot Riggs in the chest. Defendant walked away from the scene and was arrested at a later time.
Defendant argues that his conviction of second-degree murder must be vacated because the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence of the requisite malice or that defendant did not act in self-defense. We disagree.
This Court reviews a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. People v Miller, 326 Mich.App. 719, 735 929 N.W.2d 821 (2019). "We review the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the prosecution proved the crime's elements beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. "Conflicting evidence and disputed facts are to be resolved by the trier of fact." Id. "[Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from that evidence can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of a crime." People v Williams, 294 Mich.App. 461, 471; 811 N.W.2d 88 (2011) (cleaned up).
"The elements of second-degree murder are (1) a death, (2) the death was caused by an act of the defendant, (3) the defendant acted with malice, and (4) the defendant did not have lawful justification or excuse for causing the death." People v Baskerville, ___Mich App___, ___; ___ N.W.2d ___ (2020) (Docket No. 345403); slip op at 3 (cleaned up). Defendant argues that the prosecution failed to establish the third and fourth elements.
We first address whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence for the jury to find that defendant acted with malice. "Malice is defined as the intent to kill, the intent to cause great bodily harm, or the intent to do an act in wanton and willful disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of such behavior is to cause death or great bodily harm." Id. (cleaned up).
Defendant contends that the prosecution failed to establish that he acted with malice because the defense presented evidence that defendant did not intend to kill Riggs. Rather, defendant only intended to stop Riggs from attacking him. Defendant's argument lacks merit. Malice can be established through evidence of an intent to do great bodily harm or intent to do an act in wanton and willful disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of such behavior is to cause death or great bodily harm. Id. Defendant testified that he stopped on his way to the coney island to arm himself with a gun because he was apprehensive of Riggs's actions since Riggs could be violent, particularly when he was under the influence of substances. Once at the coney island, defendant paced the inside of the restaurant, continuously walking to the front door to peer outside at Riggs because he was "waiting on it to go down." Riggs was parked outside the building. As Boyd started to walk up to the coney island, defendant exited the coney and stood outside near the front end of Riggs's truck, while Riggs was seated inside the truck. Defendant walked to Boyd, holding the concealed handgun, which was covered with a bandana, behind his back. Within moments, Riggs exited his truck, held his hand out, and walked up to defendant and Boyd. After Boyd handed defendant the money, defendant and Riggs started to walk toward Riggs's truck. Defendant continued to hold the gun in his hand, covered with the bandana. As they walked, Riggs punched defendant in the face. Riggs fell to the ground, while defendant remained standing. As Riggs stood up, defendant shot Riggs in the upper body from a few feet away. Riggs stumbled away from defendant and fell near the entrance of the coney island. Defendant followed behind Riggs, walked inside the coney island, and placed the gun in his back pocket Defendant grabbed his bag of belongings that he had left inside the coney island and walked back out the front door. As defendant walked out of the door, he looked down at Riggs's body and walked off in the opposite direction.
Despite defendant's testimony that he did not intend to kill Riggs, the prosecution presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find that defendant acted with malice. Defendant armed himself with a gun, knowing there could be an altercation, he exited the coney island, knowing that Riggs was outside, he covered the gun with a bandana and held it behind his back, illustrating that he intended to hide it, and he shot Riggs in the upper body from close range. Further, defendant testified that he had the intent to stop Riggs by shooting him, he almost shot Riggs while he was on the ground, but he allowed Riggs to stand up before shooting him, and he chose not to leave the scene after being punched because he believed he had a right to stand his ground in Michigan. On the basis of defendant's actions and his own testimony, the jury could reasonably find that defendant either shot Riggs with the intent to cause great bodily harm, or with the intent to do an act in wanton and willful disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of such behavior is to cause death or great bodily harm.
Next, defendant argues that the prosecution failed to disprove that he acted in self-defense. Self-defense is an affirmative defense. People v Dupree, 486 Mich. 693, 707; 788 N.W.2d 399 (2010). "In general, a defendant does not act in justifiable self-defense when he or she uses excessive force or when the defendant is the initial aggressor." People v Guajardo, 300 Mich.App. 26, 35; 832 N.W.2d 409 (2013). "With the enactment of the Self-Defense Act (SDA), MCL 780.971 et seq., the Legislature codified the circumstances in which a person may use deadly force in self-defense or in defense of another person without having the duty to retreat." Dupree, 486 Mich. at 708. MCL 780.972(1) provides, in relevant part:
"Once a defendant raises the issue of self-defense and satisfies the initial burden of producing some evidence from which a jury could conclude that the elements necessary to establish a prima facie defense of self-defense exist, the prosecution must exclude the possibility of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt." People v Stevens, 306 Mich.App. 620, 630; 858 N.W.2d 98 (2014) (cleaned up).
The prosecution presented sufficient evidence to exclude the possibly that defendant acted in self-defense. As stated previously, defendant deliberately armed himself with a handgun, knowing there could be an altercation. Defendant paced inside the convey island, "waiting on it to go down," but chose to exit the coney island, despite knowing that Riggs was waiting outside in his truck. Despite defendant's testimony that Riggs could see the gun in his hand, the surveillance video, as well as Boyd's testimony, indicate that the gun was not easily visible because it was inside of a bandana, which defendant held to his side or behind his back at all times before shooting Riggs. Further,...
To continue reading
Request your trial