People v. Oros
| Decision Date | 08 June 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 329046,329046 |
| Citation | 320 Mich.App. 146,904 N.W.2d 209 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Christopher Allan OROS, Defendant–Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Bill Schuette, Attorney General, Aaron D. Lindstrom, Solicitor General, Jeffrey S. Getting, Prosecuting Attorney, and Heather S. Bergmann, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
State Appellate Defender (by Desiree M. Ferguson ) for defendant.
Before: Stephens, P.J., and Shapiro and Gadola, JJ.
Defendant appeals from his jury convictions of first-degree premeditated murder, MCL 750.316(1)(a) ; felony murder, MCL 750.316(1)(b) ; first-degree arson, MCL 750.72 ; second-degree home invasion, MCL 750.110a(3) ; and escape while awaiting trial, MCL 750.197(2). Defendant asserts that there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions of premeditated murder and felony murder and that those convictions should be reduced to second-degree murder. He also seeks reversal on grounds of evidentiary and procedural error and to be resentenced.
For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we reduce defendant's conviction of first-degree premeditated murder to second-degree murder and remand for sentencing for that offense. We also vacate his conviction of felony murder and remand for a new trial on that charge. We reject his other claims of error and do not address the sentencing issue because it is moot.
On November 22, 2014, emergency personnel responded to a fire at the apartment complex of the victim, Marie McMillan, in Kalamazoo, Michigan. The responders extinguished the fire and discovered the victim's body on a bed in her bedroom. Testimony from first responders indicated that someone had piled items over her body and set them on fire. An autopsy determined that the victim had died before the fire was set as a result of multiple stab wounds.
Police officers learned that a man had been knocking on the apartment doors of the apartments of the victim's neighbors throughout the day of the fire and using a fake story to solicit money. He told the residents that his girlfriend had left with his car, debit card, and cell phone. He then asked to use the person's phone, and, if allowed to do so, he made a call that went unanswered. After the "unsuccessful" call, he would directly or indirectly solicited money from the resident.
Officers determined that the number this man called from the residents' phones was associated with defendant. They also learned that a call had been made to that number from the victim's phone. The officers tracked defendant down at the apartment he shared with his girlfriend, Robin Wiley, Battle Creek, Michigan.1 When officers arrived, defendant unsuccessfully attempted to flee. After defendant was arrested, he was interrogated.2 During the interrogation, defendant admitted that he had gotten the victim to let him into her apartment and that he used her phone.
He claimed that she then attacked him without provocation by hitting him on the head with a coffee mug and that she sat on top of him with a "huge knife in her hand." He said that he and the victim struggled for control of the knife and he gained control of it. Defendant then began stabbing the victim, first in the stomach, and then, after getting on the victim's back, in the neck and other parts of her body. There were 29 stab wounds in all.
Defendant was charged with both first-degree premeditated murder and felony murder. At trial, defendant argued that he was not guilty of murder because he killed the victim in self-defense. In the alternative, he argued that there were mitigating circumstances that reduced his culpability for her death. The jury rejected his defenses and found him guilty as earlier described.
Defendant first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his first-degree premeditated murder conviction.3 "The sufficient evidence requirement is a part of every criminal defendant's due process rights." People v. Wolfe, 440 Mich. 508, 514, 489 N.W.2d 748 (1992), amended on other grounds 441 Mich. 1201, 489 N.W.2d 748 (1992). "[W]hen determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented to sustain a conviction, a court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 515–516, 489 N.W.2d 748. "The fact that some evidence is introduced does not necessarily mean that the evidence is sufficient to raise a jury issue." People v. Hampton, 407 Mich. 354, 285 N.W.2d 284 (1979) (opinion by COLEMAN, C.J.). "[C]ircumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from that evidence can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of a crime." People v. Lee, 243 Mich.App. 163, 167–168, 622 N.W.2d 71 (2000). Defendant does not argue that there was insufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could have found that he killed McMillan and did so with malice. Therefore, he concedes that there was sufficient evidence to support a verdict of second-degree murder. People v. Roper, 286 Mich.App. 77, 84, 777 N.W.2d 483 (2009) () (quotation marks and citation omitted). Instead, he argues that the prosecution failed to present any evidence from which the jury could reasonably find that he deliberated or premeditated the killing thereby elevating the crime to first-degree murder.
First-degree murder is a statutory offense. Therefore, we must "interpret the statute by examining its plain language and by employing applicable rules of statutory construction." People v. Anstey, 476 Mich. 436, 445 n. 7, 719 N.W.2d 579 (2006). The Legislature defined first-degree murder as, in relevant part, "[m]urder perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait, or any other willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing." (emphasis added). "Murder committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate" certain enumerated offenses also constitutes first- degree murder. MCL 750.316(1)(b). Significantly, the Legislature used the conjunctive word "and" in the phrase "other willful, deliberate and premeditated killing." We must, therefore, presume that the Legislature intended different meanings for the words and that there must be evidence of all three to sustain a conviction on this basis. See Liberty Hill Housing Corp. v. Livonia, 480 Mich. 44, 57, 746 N.W.2d 282 (2008) (), and People v. Sanford, 402 Mich. 460, 473–474, 265 N.W.2d 1 (1978) ().
To "premeditate" means "to think about beforehand."
People v. Morrin, 31 Mich. App. 301, 329, 187 N.W.2d 434 (1971). Merriam–Webster's Collegiate Dictionary(11th ed.) defines "premeditate" as "to think about and revolve in the mind beforehand[.]" Black's Law Dictionary(10th ed.) defines "premeditation" as "[c]onscious consideration and planning that precedes an act (such as committing a crime); the pondering of an action before carrying it out."4 Premeditation can be proved through circumstantial evidence; however, inferences may "not be arrived at by mere speculation." People v. O'Brien, 89 Mich.App. 704, 710, 282 N.W.2d 190 (1979). The prosecution may establish premeditation and deliberation through evidence of (1) the parties' prior relationship, (2) the defendant's actions before the killing, (3) the circumstances surrounding the killing itself, and (4) the defendant's conduct after the killing. People v. Schollaert, 194 Mich.App. 158, 170, 486 N.W.2d 312 (1992).
Regarding the first factor, no evidence was presented that defendant and the victim had a prior relationship. Nor was there any evidence that defendant had previously threatened the victim or that she ever expressed fear of defendant. Thus, consideration of the parties' prior relationship yielded no evidence to support a finding of premeditation.
The second factor, defendant's actions before the murder, similarly yielded no support for a finding of premeditation. Defendant had a well established pattern of trying to trick people into giving him money by telling them a false story about being locked out of his apartment and needing to get to his place of work. Residents of four other apartments in the same complex in which the victim lived in testified that defendant attempted the same scam with them that afternoon, and, though some described defendant as intimidating, none testified that he acted violently. There was no evidence to suggest that defendant acted with a different plan when he knocked on the victim's door.
The fourth factor concerns the defendant's actions after the murder. In this case, defendant attempted to cover up the murder, but his actions do not suggest that the attempt was part of a pre-offense plan. Defendant washed the knife, which was an ordinary steak knife, in the victim's kitchen sink and left it there.
Nearly two hours later,5 ample time after the crime to think about the extensive evidence at the victim's apartment, he returned to the apartment, removed bloodied items and set the fire. While evidence that an assailant attempted to cover up a murder in its immediate aftermath can support a reasonable inference that the series of events was part of a preconceived plan, see People v. Gonzalez, 468 Mich. 636, 641–642, 664 N.W.2d 159 (2003), the evidence of defendant's actions after the murder in this case do not indicate a preconceived plan. To the contrary, the fact that defendant initially left the victim's apartment after doing very...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Oros
...support a second-degree murder conviction but not defendant’s first-degree premeditated murder jury conviction. People v. Oros , 320 Mich. App. 146, 150, 904 N.W.2d 209 (2017). The Court of Appeals applied the factors set forth in People v. Schollaert , 194 Mich. App. 158, 170, 486 N.W.2d 3......
-
Oros v. McCullick
...that reduced his culpability for her death. The jury rejected his defenses and found him guilty . . . .People v. Oros, 904 N.W.2d 209, 213 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). Petitioner appealed his convictions and sentences to the Michigan Court of Appeals raising seven issues including each of his hab......