People v. Harris

• Decision Date: 19 August 1991
• Docket Number: 115739 and 116045,Nos. 115243,s. 115243
• Citation: 190 Mich.App. 652,476 N.W.2d 767
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfreda DRAKE, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cortez WALKER, Defendant-Appellant. 190 Mich.App. 652, 476 N.W.2d 767

Page 767

476 N.W.2d 767

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfreda DRAKE, Defendant-Appellant.

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cortez WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 115243, 115739 and 116045.

190 Mich.App. 652, 476 N.W.2d 767

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Feb. 21, 1991, at Detroit.

Decided Aug. 19, 1991, at 9:15 a.m.

Released for Publication Nov. 18, 1991.

[190 MICHAPP 654] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Gay Secor [190 MICHAPP 655] Hardy, Sol. Gen., John D. O'Hair, Pros. Atty., Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of Research, Training, and Appeals, and Olga Agnello, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the people.

James A. Carlin, Southfield, for Derrick Harris on appeal.

Douglas Hamel, Detroit, for Alfreda Drake on appeal.

Patricia S. Slomski, Detroit, for Cortez Walker on appeal.

Before REILLY, P.J., and SHEPHERD and MARILYN J. KELLY, JJ.

SHEPHERD, Judge.

In these consolidated cases, defendants Derrick Harris, Alfreda Drake, and Cortez Walker appeal as of right their convictions and sentences. Defendants were originally charged with first-degree murder and assault with intent to commit murder as a result of their involvement in the February 4, 1988, beating death of Mary Guyton and assault of Ervin Brewer. Each of the defendants was convicted of second-degree murder, M.C.L. Sec. 750.317; M.S.A. Sec. 28.549. Walker was also convicted of assault with intent to commit murder, M.C.L. Sec. 750.83; M.S.A. Sec. 28.278. Harris was sentenced to 35 to 100 years' imprisonment, Drake was sentenced to life imprisonment, and Walker was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 50 to 100 years and 80 to 120 months.

According to Ervin Brewer, Guyton and a man named Chico had been selling crack cocaine out of the apartment in which Guyton and Brewer were attacked. Defendants Harris and Drake first came at around 8:00 a.m. on February 4, 1988, to collect money for the crack, but Guyton did not have the full amount. Harris and Drake then left, but returned[190 MICHAPP 656] a short time later with a man named Quincy. Quincy threatened Guyton and Brewer that if he did not get his money by noon, they both would be killed. Quincy, Harris, and Drake then left the apartment again, returning shortly thereafter with defendant Walker and a rifle.

Quincy and defendants Harris and Drake began beating Guyton and continued to do so as she fled into the bedroom. Meanwhile, Chico and defendant Walker beat Brewer with the rifle, a lamp, and their fists and feet. Brewer heard defendant Drake say Guyton should be beaten with a skillet and he then saw one of the men get a skillet. Another witness saw Chico get a skillet and take it into the bedroom. He also heard Guyton call defendant Drake a "bitch," and then heard slapping noises. Brewer was eventually ordered into the bedroom, where he saw Guyton with her hands bound, bleeding and begging for her life. Brewer was then told to lay face down on the floor, whereupon his hands were tied behind his back with a telephone cord and he was kicked.

Quincy, Chico, and Walker continued to beat Guyton for about two hours, with Drake periodically joining in. At one point, Guyton was permitted to make two phone calls in an effort to get the money, but she was unsuccessful and the beating continued. As the two victims were being beaten, defendant Harris sprayed Guyton with soda pop. Brewer later recalled cold water being poured on him. Defendant Walker, Quincy, and Chico eventually put Guyton in a closet, where they continued to beat her. After the assailants were gone, Guyton did not respond to Brewer's calls. Brewer managed to free himself, and he fled the apartment through the bedroom window. The police found Guyton's body lying face down in the closet with her hands tied behind her back with wire and [190 MICHAPP 657] a telephone cord. An autopsy revealed multiple fresh bruises, lacerations, and abrasions on Guyton's face, scalp, neck, back, chest, hands, and arms. The coroner opined that death was caused by multiple blunt force trauma and compression of the neck.

Docket No. 115243

As do the other defendants, defendant Harris raises a number of issues on appeal. The first is that there was insufficient evidence to support binding him over on the two charged offenses and that his motion to quash the information should have been granted. The function of the examining magistrate is to determine whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause for charging the defendant with that crime. M.C.L. Sec. 766.13; M.S.A. Sec. 28.931; People v. King, 412 Mich. 145, 152-153, 312 N.W.2d 629 (1981). A reviewing court may not substitute its judgment for that of the magistrate, but may reverse only upon a determination that the magistrate abused his discretion. People v. Talley, 410 Mich. 378, 385, 301 N.W.2d 809 (1981).

We find no abuse of discretion here. With regard to the murder charge, the prosecution only needed to show some evidence that defendant either possessed the requisite intent to kill Guyton or participated knowing that the principals had such intent. See People v. Youngblood, 165 Mich.App. 381, 387, 418 N.W.2d 472 (1988). Premeditation and deliberation could be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the killing and the apparent organized conduct before it, such as defendant's having repeatedly returned with more people and a weapon. Although Harris himself did not assault Brewer, the circumstances and events surrounding [190 MICHAPP 658] the crime gave rise to an inference of an organized plan in which defendant participated.

Defendant also challenges the trial court's denial of his motion for a directed verdict with respect to both charges. We review the denial of such a motion by reviewing the evidence presented in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determining whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charged offenses proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Hampton, 407 Mich. 354, 368, 285 N.W.2d 284 (1979), cert. den. 449 U.S. 885, 101 S.Ct. 239, 66 L.Ed.2d 110 (1980). Defendant's motion was properly denied with respect to both charges. Defendant was prosecuted under an aiding and abetting theory on the assault charge, and there was sufficient evidence to submit to the trier of fact the issues of the aid and encouragement given by defendant to Walker and Chico, who did the actual beating, as well as defendant's knowledge of their intent to murder Brewer. With regard to the murder charge, defendant claims that the testimony showed that he intended that Guyton remain alive and that he left the apartment and tried to get the others to leave while Guyton was still alive, thus negating the element of premeditation and deliberation. However, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, we find that there was evidence that defendant orchestrated a plan to bring help and weapons to the apartment and that he participated in Guyton's beating and sprayed her with soda while others were beating her. There was sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer premeditation and deliberation.

Defendant further contends that his conviction for second-degree murder was against the great weight of the evidence and that his motion for a new trial therefore should have been granted. We [190 MICHAPP 659] review the denial of that motion for an abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion will be found only where denial of the motion was manifestly against the clear weight of the evidence. People v. Gonzalez, 178 Mich.App. 526, 532, 444 N.W.2d 228 (1989). We find no abuse of discretion here.

To establish second-degree murder, the prosecution was required to prove that defendant caused the death of the victim and that the killing was done with malice and without justification or excuse. People v. Porter, 169 Mich.App. 190, 192, 425 N.W.2d 514 (1988). Malice is the intent to kill, the intent to do great bodily harm, or the intent to create a high risk of death or great bodily harm with knowledge that such is the probable result. Malice may be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the killing. Id., pp. 192-193, 425 N.W.2d 514. The evidence in this matter revealed that Guyton died as a result of multiple blunt force trauma and compression of the neck, either one alone being sufficient to kill her. The police found two skillets with blood on them, and the medical examiner testified that the blunt force injuries could have been inflicted with the skillets. There was also testimony that defendant actively participated in Guyton's beating, at least up to a certain point, and thereafter sprayed her with soda while the others continued to beat her. This evidence showed that defendant participated in the beating or aided and encouraged others. Malice could be inferred from the number of people attacking Guyton, the duration of the beating, and the instruments used. There was no claim of excuse or justification.

Defendant further assigns error to the trial court's failure to grant a mistrial after his codefendant, Walker, apparently attacked the prosecutor with the jurors present. We have carefully reviewed the record and find that the trial court did [190 MICHAPP 660] not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. SeePeople v. Siler, 171 Mich.App. 246, 256, 429 N.W.2d 865 (1988). The inquiry in situations such as this focuses on the defendant's ability to get a fair trial. Id. The trial court admonished the jurors regarding their function and duties, and questioned each one individually to determine the effect, if any, of Walker's outburst on them. All the jurors indicated they could remain impartial, and those jurors who had expressed some concern at the time of the incident explained that they merely reacted to what was to them a frightening and unusual situation but that they...