People v. Martin

• Decision Date: 21 October 2021
• Docket Number: 353691
• Parties: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MONICA MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MONICA MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 353691

Court of Appeals of Michigan

October 21, 2021

UNPUBLISHED

Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 19-004669-01-FH

Before: Shapiro, P.J., and Borrello and O'Brien, JJ.

Per Curiam.

Defendant appeals as of right her bench trial convictions for assault with a dangerous weapon (felonious assault), MCL 750.82 domestic violence, MCL 750.81(2), and assault with intent to do great bodily harm, MCL 750.84. Defendant was sentenced to three years' probation, with the first eight months in jail, for all three convictions. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises out of an altercation between defendant and her then-husband on June 4, 2019, at 19544 Dresden in Detroit Michigan. The victim and defendant were former spouses who apparently had a rather turbulent relationship. During the bench trial in this matter, the victim testified that, on the night in question, at roughly midnight, he was sitting in his vehicle, which was parked in the driveway of the house at 19544 Dresden, when defendant appeared unannounced. Defendant drove up to the house, exited her vehicle, and approached the victim. At that point, the victim rolled down his window and opened the front door on the driver's side. The victim indicated that defendant was using profanity at him, acting irate, and demanding that he go back home with her so they could have sex. The victim called the police to have defendant removed from the premises. According to the victim, defendant then entered the victim's vehicle and sat in the front passenger seat. The victim called the police again the moment defendant forced her way into the front passenger seat. As he waited for the police to arrive, and in an effort to avoid trouble, the victim drove his vehicle out of the driveway and parked it in front of a vacant lot across the street from the house. Meanwhile, defendant climbed into the back seat directly behind the driver's seat, reached around the victim, and held a knife to his neck and throat. The victim then attempted to grab defendant by the wrist and removed her grip from around his neck, but he soon started feeling pressure from the knife on his neck, followed by a burning sensation. The victim felt a shooting pain in his back when he attempted to remove defendant's grip from around his neck, which was when he realized that he had been stabbed in the back five times. Detroit Police Department Officer Dana McGregor testified that he spoke with the victim and observed that he was bleeding from his left forearm. Officer McGregor could not locate a box cutter in the vicinity of the incident, and he did not see any injuries to defendant.

On the first day of trial, the prosecution moved to prohibit defendant from referencing the prior bad acts of the victim, who allegedly had a long history of violence that resulted in the issuance of more than one personal protection order against him and felony charges of child abuse. The trial court permitted defendant to ask questions about the relationship between her and the victim, but it prohibited the introduction of any evidence of abuse by either party.

Following the closing of proofs, the trial court made its findings, which were, in relevant part:

At the time of the incident, the [victim] was in a white Suburban vehicle, according to the testimony. . . . And . . . he was in the driveway having a drink and listening to the radio.

[D]efendant approached in a vehicle, a 2009 black Lincoln MKX. According to the testimony, [d]efendant approached [the victim] yelling and demanding that he come home. Previous to this, [the victim] was watching their children so [defendant] could celebrate her birthday that night.

She approached the vehicle. According to the testimony she took keys- the keys out of the ignition and demanded that [the victim] come back to their house-to her house and to have sex with her.

He called the police, when she first arrived, and told them that his wife was there and that she was drunk.

[The victim's] testimony was that the defendant climbed over him into the passenger seat, shut the driver's side door and she was able to make her way behind him, climb to the back seat.

She reached around. She put a knife on his throat saying that he was hers. She began to stab him, [the victim] said about five times, including in his spine. He said he could feel pain. He felt a burning sensation.

[The victim] called the police and told them that he had been stabbed. When the police arrived, which was about 25 to 30 minutes later, [the victim] was at the door of his mother's house and came down to speak with the police. [D]efendant was outside standing on the sidewalk.

She claimed that [the victim] . . . stabbed himself with a box cutter and that she was hit with a club. That [the victim] hit [defendant] in the face.

* * *

[D]efendant said that [the victim] . . . was stabbed outside the vehicle. [But] [t]here was blood actually inside of the vehicle.

[T]here seems to be a lot of corroboration with [the victim's] testimony and the evidence in this case. Blood was in the car, [the victim] had injuries, [the victim] called 911, [the victim] needed medical attention.

* * *

Now, [defendant's] testimony does not seem as reasonable, I will say, because the officer saw no injuries. There . . . are no injuries the Court could see in the booking photo with regards to . . . a busted lip and a forced eye . . . closed.

There's no explanation for all of the blood that was in the vehicle. And [defendant] doesn't really keep her story straight with regards to the use of . . . the box cutters.

* * *

I didn't find [defendant's] testimony to be wholly credible. It certainly contradicts the physical evidence found in the car.

* * *

I don't see how the evidence leads to any other conclusion, other . . . than that [defendant] went over to that location, went inside the car and began stabbing.

Defendant was sentenced as stated above. This appeal ensued.

II. ANALYSIS

On appeal, defendant first argues that the evidence the prosecution presented at trial was insufficient to sustain her convictions for assault with intent to do great bodily harm, felonious assault, and domestic violence, and to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

This Court reviews de novo a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. People v Henry, 315 Mich.App. 130, 135; 889 N.W.2d 1 (2016). When reviewing a sufficiency challenge, "we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether a rational trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." People v Smith-Anthony, 494 Mich. 669, 676; 837 N.W.2d 415 (2013). "The standard of review is deferential: a reviewing court is required to draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in support of the jury verdict." People v Bailey, 310 Mich.App. 703, 713; 873 N.W.2d 855 (2015). When assessing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the trier of fact, not the appellate court, determines what inferences may be fairly drawn from the evidence and the weight to be accorded those inferences. People v Hardiman, 466 Mich. 417, 428; 646 N.W.2d 158 (2002). This Court must not interfere with the trier of fact's role as the sole judge of the facts when reviewing the evidence. People v Malone, 287 Mich.App. 648, 654; 792 N.W.2d 7 (2010).

Due process requires the prosecution to prove the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich. 508, 513-514; 489 N.W.2d 748 (1992). Here, defendant was convicted of assault with intent to do great bodily harm, felonious assault, and domestic violence. Accordingly, the prosecution was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of each of these crimes. To prove assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder, the prosecution must establish "an attempt or threat with force or violence to do corporal harm to another" and "an intent to do great bodily harm less than murder." People v Parcha, 227 Mich.App. 236, 239; 575 N.W.2d 316 (1997). "Because intent may be difficult to prove, only minimal circumstantial evidence is necessary to show a defendant entertained the requisite intent." People v Harverson, 291 Mich.App. 171, 178; 804 N.W.2d 757 (2010). "Intent to cause serious harm can be inferred from the defendant's actions, including the use of a dangerous weapon or the making of threats." People v Stevens, 306 Mich.App. 620, 629; 858 N.W.2d 98 (2014). An assault is "an attempt to commit a battery or an unlawful act that places another in reasonable apprehension of receiving an immediate battery," and a battery is "an intentional, unconsented and harmful or offensive touching of the person of another, or of something closely connected with the person." People v Starks, 473 Mich. 227, 234; 701 N.W.2d 136 (2005) (quotation marks and citation omitted). "The elements of felonious assault are (1) an assault, (2) with a dangerous weapon, and (3) with the intent to injure or place the victim in reasonable apprehension of an immediate battery." People v Chambers, 277 Mich.App. 1, 8; 742 N.W.2d 610 (2007). In addition, domestic violence is a specific intent crime that is proved by establishing that the defendant and victim are associated by marriage as set forth in the domestic assault statute, and that the defendant either intended to batter the victim or that the defendant's unlawful act placed the victim in reasonable apprehension of being battered. People v Corbiere, 220 Mich.App. 260, 266; 559 N.W.2d 666 (1996).

An individual not engaged in criminal activity may use deadly force against another individual anywhere she has a legal...