People v. Jenkins

• Decision Date: 27 February 2001
• Docket Number: Docket No. 213311.
• Citation: 624 N.W.2d 457,244 Mich. App. 1
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie C. JENKINS, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

624 N.W.2d 457

244 Mich. App. 1

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie C. JENKINS, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 213311.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted April 6, 2000, at Lansing.

Decided December 19, 2000, at 9:00 a.m.

Released for Publication February 27, 2001.

Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and Amy M. Ronayne, Assistant Attorney General, for the people.

Law Offices of Frank and Forster, P.C. (by Stuart W. Hyvonen), Saginaw, for the defendant.

Before WILDER, P.J., and McDONALD and DOCTOROFF, JJ.

WILDER, P.J.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of common-law obstruction of justice for the fabricating of false, inaccurate, or misleading evidence that was material to a grand jury investigation, M.C.L. § 750.505; MSA 28.773, conspiracy to obstruct justice, M.C.L. § 750.157a; MSA 28.354(1), and two Election Law violations by appointing as an assistant to accept delivery of absentee voter ballots one who was a candidate on the ballot and a member of a candidate's immediate family, M.C.L. § 168.764b(3); MSA 6.1764(2)(3), M.C.L. § 168.931; MSA 6.1931, and willful failure to perform a duty imposed by M.C.L. § 168.760; MSA 6.1760 by refusing to allow public inspection of absentee voter ballot applications or lists, M.C.L. § 168.931(1)(h); MSA 6.1931(1)(h). On his convictions for obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice, the trial court sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of fifteen months to five years in prison. The convictions for violations of the Election Law and for failure to perform a duty resulted in sentences of ninety days in prison. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural Background

Defendant was a resident of Buena Vista Township in Saginaw County, where he held the office of Buena Vista Township Clerk. Defendant's convictions arose out of a grand jury investigation into alleged Election Law violations involving the August 6, 1996, primary election in Saginaw County and defendant's appointment of Robert Woods, Jr. (Woods), a Saginaw County commissioner, to the position of election assistant despite the fact that Woods and his brother, James Woods, a township trustee for Buena Vista Township, both faced reelection and appeared on the ballot for their respective positions. Woods' candidacy for reelection was unopposed; however, James Woods was opposed by another candidate.

On August 1, 1996, the Michigan State Police received a number of complaints about possible voter tampering in certain communities in Saginaw County, including Buena Vista Township. These complaints arose after more than two hundred envelopes and absentee voter applications had been mailed from Lansing and received by the Saginaw City Clerk. The police department began a prompt investigation of the complaints because the primary election was to be held on August 6, 1996.

Detective Michael Hosh, Lieutenant Mark Dougovito, and Lieutenant Charles Bush arrived at the Buena Vista Township Clerk's Office on August 5, 1996, to investigate the complaints, but defendant refused to permit the officers to review voting records for the township involving absentee ballot applications and the absentee poll book containing the records of applications that had been mailed for the current primary election.¹ Detective Hosh subsequently produced a search warrant for the records, and Lieutenant Dougovito produced a subpoena for election documents and records pertaining to absentee voting. This search, however, did not reveal any documentation regarding who was appointed to accept, deliver, or return absentee voter applications and ballots.

A second search warrant of the absentee ballots was executed on August 6, 1996, after the election polls closed, and a third search warrant seeking all records pertaining to absentee voting was executed on August 28, 1996. Neither an oath certificate nor any other document in the name of Robert Woods was discovered during any of the three searches.² When the police asked defendant who was authorized to collect and receive absentee voter applications and ballots, defendant replied himself, Maxine King, who was the deputy clerk, and Meatha Winbush, who was an administrative services clerk.

A one-man grand jury proceeding commenced on September 19, 1996, before the Honorable Leopold Borrello, at which defendant testified, among other things, that he appointed Woods as an assistant in the election process.³ In response to this testimony, which was the first time the officers became aware that an additional person had been appointed to collect absentee voter applications and ballots, Investigator Charles Brown of the Saginaw County Prosecutor's Office asked Woods, who was sequestered in the jury room, whether he had an election card authorizing him to receive ballots. Woods produced an election card, which Brown presented to the grand jury. Defendant then continued his grand jury testimony, indicating that he administered the oath appointing Woods to collect absentee ballots on July 9, 1996, and that an oath certificate was filed in the clerk's office verifying the event.

At approximately 11:30 a.m., defendant requested a bathroom break, which lasted about fifteen minutes. After the grand jury proceeding resumed, the grand juror asked defendant to contact defendant's office to determine whether the oath certificate was available for police officers to retrieve. The proceeding was then adjourned for lunch and to allow defendant to call his office.

During the lunch recess of the grand jury proceeding on October 31, 1996, Lieutenant Dougovito obtained a subpoena for the Woods oath certificate and went to the clerk's office to obtain the document. He arrived between 12:15 and 12:20 p.m. and was met by King and Winbush. King informed the officer that the document was available and pointed to the top tray of an in-out basket that contained only one document, the oath certificate. The unsigned oath certificate was dated July 9, 1996. When the officer asked King when the document was prepared, King looked to a typewriter and then responded "whatever date is on the document is when it was produced." King also indicated that there were no other documents showing that Woods was a registrar, but that she was present when defendant gave Woods the oath. Lieutenant Dougovito retrieved the oath certificate from the basket, returned to the court with King and Winbush, and presented the grand jury with the document. The grand jury proceeding reconvened at approximately 1:30 p.m., and defendant continued to testify until about 2:15 p.m.

King also testified at the grand jury proceeding that the first time she saw the Woods oath certificate was in July 1996, when she prepared it on the typewriter in the township offices. According to King, the oath certificate was the only document relating to the appointment of Woods as deputy registrar and election officer. King testified that she prepared the oath certificate pursuant to defendant's instructions in July, that she was not present when the oath was administered and did not know what day Woods appeared for the oath, that she only inserted the information defendant told her to type, and that she gave the oath certificate to defendant. King denied preparing the oath certificate after July 9, 1996, or on October 31, 1996, and could not explain how the document was overlooked during the execution of three separate search warrants. King further acknowledged having seen the election card before, but could not recall when she typed it (it was not typed at the same time as the oath certificate) and did not know why defendant would have signed the election card but not the oath certificate. King further denied receiving a telephone call from defendant during lunch on October 31, 1996, and denied having any discussions with defendant about the oath certificate on that day.

Defendant was indicted by the grand jury and subsequently was charged by information.⁴ Following a preliminary examination, defendant was bound over as charged. Defendant moved to quash the charges, arguing that Michigan does not recognize a general common-law obstruction of justice offense and that a common-law obstruction of justice offense must be accomplished by a recognized means of obstruction, citing People v. Thomas, 438 Mich. 448, 457-458, 475 N.W.2d 288 (1991), and People v. Vallance, 216 Mich.App. 415, 419, 548 N.W.2d 718 (1996). Defendant contended that the offenses with which he was charged were not recognized at common law and, thus, must be dismissed.

The prosecutor responded that although there was no case law establishing such a crime in Michigan, the requirement that the offense charged must have been recognized at common law was met because the offenses of falsifying proceedings in a court of record, perjury, and negligence of public officers were recognized offenses within the category of obstruction offenses. Alternatively, the prosecutor argued that the common-law offenses within the category of obstruction of justice were not limited to those enumerated by Blackstone⁵ and, therefore, whether defendant's conduct falls within one of those recognized offenses is not dispositive.

The trial court denied defendant's motion to quash the obstruction of justice and conspiracy charges, stating as follows:

In the instant case, Defendant is charged with obstructing justice by fabricating false, inaccurate or misleading evidence material to a grand jury investigation. The Court finds that obstruction of justice is not limited to the twenty-two offenses as cited by Blackstone. Obstruction of justice is a common-law offense, but the ways one can obstruct justice are not limited to committing Blackstone's enumerated common-law offenses. For instance, the Court notes that in [United States] v. Mullins, 22 F.3d 1365 (C.A.6, 1994), the Sixth Circuit affirmed defendant...