People v. Maxwell, 337905

• Decision Date: 27 November 2018
• Docket Number: No. 337905,No. 342169,337905,342169
• Parties: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MONTEZ MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICTORIA LYNN SOLOMON, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MONTEZ MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VICTORIA LYNN SOLOMON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 337905

No. 342169

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

November 27, 2018

UNPUBLISHED

Wayne Circuit Court

LC No. 16-008074-01-FC

Wayne Circuit Court

LC No. 16-006414-01-FC

Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and SAWYER and MARKEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendants, Montez Maxwell and Victoria Lynn Solomon, were tried jointly, but before separate juries, for the murder of Tyrone Delaney. In Docket No. 337905, Maxwell appeals as of right his convictions of first-degree premeditated murder, MCL 750.316, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b. Maxwell was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for murder, to be served consecutive to a two-year sentence for felony-firearm. In Docket No. 342169, Solomon appeals by leave granted¹ her conviction of first-degree premeditated murder.² Solomon was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. We affirm Maxwell's and Solomon's convictions and sentences.

I. FACTS

Delaney fathered three of Solomon's children. Testimony at trial explained that Solomon and Delaney had an off-and-on relationship over a period of several years. The relationship was abusive, and Delaney had received two misdemeanor convictions, in 2009 and 2010, for assaulting Solomon. Nonetheless, testimony presented at trial indicated that Solomon frequently took all six of her children to the home of Kalua Hudson, who is Delaney's mother, to feed and bathe them. Solomon was comfortable leaving her children with Hudson and her family. A few days before the murder, Solomon had brought Delaney's children to visit with him at Hudson's home. For reasons discussed in more detail later in this opinion, Delaney had been absent for some time, and had recently begun living at Hudson's home at the time of his death.

In the afternoon of June 21, 2016, one of Delaney's sisters, Tanysha Black (Tanysha), picked up Solomon and her children. Plans had been made for Delaney to have his two youngest children, approximately 1-year-old twins, stay overnight at Hudson's home. When Tanysha brought Solomon to Hudson's home, there was no animosity; in fact, Solomon, Delaney, and others sat together for about half an hour before Tanysha drove Solomon and her other children to a restaurant. But while Solomon was at Hudson's home, she asked Tanysha to retrieve Solomon's purse. Solomon explained that she had a handgun in her purse, and did not want the children to find it. Solomon did not explain why she had the gun with her. Tanysha retrieved the purse and saw the gun, which she described as a black and chrome .38 caliber handgun.

During the evening and into the night, Solomon and Delaney argued via telephone and text message. It appears that the primary issue was Delaney's complaint that Solomon did not provide enough diapers for the children when she dropped them off with him. Eventually, Solomon grew frustrated and demanded that her children be returned to her. Delaney refused, explaining that it was too late at night for Solomon to get the children, who were asleep. Solomon was not satisfied, and began calling friends and family members, looking for someone to drive her to Hudson's home. During these calls, Solomon began threatening to kill Delaney if he did not return the children.

At the time, Solomon was dating and living with Maxwell. Using information regarding what towers their respective cellular telephones were interacting with during the relevant timeframe, it appears that Solomon and Maxwell traveled to Hudson's home between 1:00 a.m. and 1:30 a.m. on June 22, 2016. Tameka Black (Tameka), another of Delaney's siblings, was at Hudson's home because Delaney had asked her to bring diapers. Tameka explained that she saw Delaney walk out of the home and head in an unexpected direction. This drew Tameka outside, who saw that Solomon was standing outside the home.

Delaney and Solomon had a verbal argument over the children. During this argument, Solomon spat on Delaney, and Delaney slapped Solomon. Hudson was called outside, and was seemingly able to calm the situation to some extent. But as Delaney was beginning to walk away, Solomon made a threat, stating, "I'm going to get somebody to shoot you." Solomon took her cellular telephone out and said something that went unheard by the witnesses. However, Delaney responded by stating, "Oh, b****, you're still throwing threats at me." He approached Solomon and slapped her a second time. Hudson again intervened, however, telling Delaney to stop, which he did.

According to Tameka, Solomon then began backing away from Delaney, seemingly leading him toward the nearby intersection. Delaney followed Solomon. Solomon suddenly looked to her right, and at that point, Maxwell emerged from behind a group of bushes. He was dressed all in black, and had a gun drawn. He ran toward Delaney, reached around Hudson, and fired. Delaney pushed Hudson away and tried to retreat, but tripped and fell while running. Maxwell then continued firing bullets into Delaney, who was on the ground, while Hudson stood by, imploring Maxwell to stop. Solomon stood by and did not intervene. Delaney died at the scene. An autopsy found nine bullets inside his body, and wounds to his face, neck, shoulder, arm, chest, back, hand, and foot. A gun matching the description of the one seen earlier in Solomon's purse was found discarded at the scene of the murder. The gun had no live rounds of ammunition left.

Solomon was arrested at the scene. Maxwell fled, but turned himself into police later that day, and admitted to shooting Delaney. Maxwell claimed that he shot Delaney because Delaney was fighting with Solomon, and Maxwell was aware that Delaney had "beat her into a coma before."³ Maxwell also stated that there were "a bunch of other people there and they started fighting with me too. I got a gun and shot [Delaney]. I was scared and took off running." Maxwell explained that he left the gun he used at the scene.

II. DOCKET NO. 337905 (MAXWELL)

A. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

Maxwell first contends that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. While he admits to shooting Delaney, Maxwell contends that the murder was not premeditated; rather, he acted in defense of Solomon. We disagree.

"The test for determining the sufficiency of evidence in a criminal case is whether the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the people, would warrant a reasonable juror in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." People v Nowack, 462 Mich 392, 399; 614 NW2d 78 (2000). "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." Id. at 400. Circumstantial evidence and rational inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence can, alone, be sufficient to support a conviction. Id. Thus, "[t]he scope of review is the same whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial." Id.

First-degree premeditated murder is defined as "[m]urder perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait, or any other willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing." MCL 750.316(1)(a). See also People v Bowman, 254 Mich App 142, 151; 656 NW2d 835 (2002) ("The elements of first-degree [premeditated] murder are that the defendant killed the victim and that the killing was . . . 'willful, deliberate, and premeditated,' MCL 750.316(1)(a) . . . ."). The prosecution was required to prove that Maxwell "intentionally killed the victim and that the act of killing was premeditated and deliberate." People v Jackson, 292 Mich App 583, 588; 808 NW2d 541 (2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted). "Premeditation and deliberation require sufficient time to allow the defendant to take a second look." Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Recently, in People v Oros, 502 Mich 229, 240-242; 917 NW2d 559 (2018), our Supreme Court explained:

The Legislature did not explicitly define the meaning of premeditation and deliberation. However, we have recognized the ordinary meaning of the distinct and separate terms as the following: "[t]o premeditate is to think about beforehand; to deliberate is to measure and evaluate the major facets of a choice or problem." People v Woods, 416 Mich 581, 599 n 2; 331 NW2d 707 (1982) (quotation marks and citation omitted). While the statute may be clear on its face that premeditation and deliberation are separate elements, a rigid and mechanical application is often difficult because the same facts may tend to establish each element, and they are subjective factors usually incapable of direct proof absent an admission or confession by the defendant. See Cardozo, What Medicine Can Do for Law, in Law and Literature and Other Essays and Addresses (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co, 1931), p 97 ("[O]n the face of the statute the distinction is clear enough. The difficulty arises when we try to discover what is meant by the words deliberate and premeditated."); see also [People v ]Morrin, 31 Mich App [301,] 331[; 187 NW2d 434 (1971)], citing People v Wolf, 95 Mich 625; 55 NW 357 (1893).

"Since the distinguishing elements of first-degree murder ultimately resolve themselves into questions of fact, minimum standards of proof, if reasonably related to the circumstances which must be proved, will serve to preserve the distinction between first-degree and second-degree murder." Morrin, 31 Mich App at 328. "The real focus of first-degree murder jurisprudence in Michigan has been on the kind of evidence which permits an inference of premeditation and deliberation," and that inference may be established "from all the facts of the case." Id. at 328 (emphasis added). In other words, when considering a sufficiency-of-the-evidence issue, "[t]he question is whether the evidence introduced at the

...