People v. Oros

• Decision Date: 05 July 2018
• Docket Number: No. 156241,156241
• Citation: 917 N.W.2d 559,502 Mich. 229
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christopher Allan OROS, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

502 Mich. 229

917 N.W.2d 559

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.Christopher Allan OROS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 156241

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued on application for leave to appeal March 7, 2018

Decided July 5, 2018

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 THE ENTIRE BENCH

Wilder, J.

This case involves an issue germane to every criminal trial—that is, whether sufficient evidence exists to support a defendant’s conviction.In particular, the question before us is whether sufficient evidence exists to support defendant’s jury conviction of first-degree premeditated murder, MCL 750.316(1)(a).Defendant does not dispute that he intended to kill the victim, Marie McMillan, when he stabbed her 29 times; rather, he argues that insufficient proofs were presented at trial with regard to the elements of premeditation and deliberation to sustain his conviction.The Court of Appeals agreed, concluding that there was insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation, and therefore reduced defendant’s first-degree premeditated murder conviction to second-degree murder.

A thorough review of the record requires a contrary result.We hold that the Court of Appeals erred when it improperly usurped the role of the fact-finder and misapplied this Court’s opinion in People v. Hoffmeister , 394 Mich. 155, 229 N.W.2d 305(1975).In lieu of granting leave to appeal, we reverse Part II of the Court Appeals opinion and hold that, based on the record evidence presented at defendant’s trial, a reasonable juror could have found that the killing was committed with premeditation and deliberation.Defendant’s first-degree premeditated murder conviction and sentence must be reinstated.

I.FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On November 22, 2014, defendant went door-to-door targeting the residents of Clayborne Court Apartments in Kalamazoo, Michigan, in an attempt to solicit money.Defendant’s ruse was that his girlfriend had left him without access to his vehicle, debit card, or cell phone.Defendant asked each resident if he could use their phone so that he could contact his girlfriend.If allowed to do so, defendant would actually place a call to his own cell phone, which was located inside his vehicle where no one was available to answer it.After an "unsuccessful" call, defendant would directly or indirectly solicit money from each resident, claiming that he needed gas money to get to work.According to one resident, the solicitation started out passive, but quickly turned aggressive.Another resident testified that he felt uncomfortable because he sensed defendant was casing his apartment.

Defendant used this same subterfuge to gain access to the victim’s apartment.During the police investigative interview, defendant admitted that he was able to persuade the victim to let him inside the apartment, and once inside, he used the victim’s phone just as he had with the other residents.According to defendant, the victim, acting without provocation, struck him over the head with a coffee mug, knocking him to the floor.Defendant further stated that, at some point, the victim climbed on top of him with a "huge knife in her hand."A struggle over the knife ensued, and after defendant gained control over the knife, he began stabbing the victim.The victim sustained a total of 29 stab wounds, 19 of which were inflicted while she was still alive.

Defendant was charged with open murder, MCL 750.316.¹At the conclusion of defendant’s trial, the trial court instructed the jury on the elements of the crimes of first-degree premeditated murder, second-degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter as well as the evidentiary findings beyond a reasonable doubt that were required to convict defendant of any of these crimes.Specifically, the trial court stated:

The Defendant is charged with open murder.To prove first degree premeditated murder, the Prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

First, that the Defendant caused the death of Marie McMillan, that is, that Marie McMillan died as a result of a stabbing.Second, that the Defendant intended to kill Marie McMillan.Third, that this intent to kill was premeditated, that is thought out beforehand.Fourth, that the killing was deliberate which means that the Defendant considered the pros and cons of the killing and thought about and chose his actions before he did it.There must have been real and substantial reflection for long enough to give a reasonable person a chance to think twice about the intent to kill.The law does not say how much time is needed.It is for you to decide if enough time passed under the circumstances of this case.The killing cannot be the result of a sudden impulse without thought or reflection.Fifth, that the killing was not justified, excused or done under circumstances that reduce it to a lesser crime.

To prove second degree murder the Prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt.First, that the Defendant caused the death of Marie McMillan, that is, that Marie McMillan died as a result of a stabbing.Second, that the Defendant had one of these three states of mind: he intended to kill, or he intended to do great bodily harm to Marie McMillan, or he knowingly created a very high risk of death or great bodily harm knowing that death or such harm would be the likely result of actions.Third, that the killing was not justified, excused, or done under circumstances that reduce it to a lesser crime.

In count one, if you find the Defendant guilty of murder you must state in your verdict whether it is murder in the first degree or murder in the second degree.

The crime of murder may be reduced to voluntary manslaughter if the Defendant acted out of passion or anger brought about by adequate cause and before the Defendant had a reasonable time to calm down.For manslaughter, the following two things must be present.First, when the Defendant acted his thinking must be disturbed by emotional excitement to the point that a reasonable person might have acted in impulse without thinking twice from passion instead of judgment.This emotional excitement must have been the result of something that would cause a reasonable person to act rashly or on impulse.The law does not say what things are enough to do this.That is for you to decide.

Second, the killing itself must result from this emotional excitement.The Defendant must have acted before a reasonable time had passed to calm down and return to reason.The law does not say how much time is needed.That is for you to decide.The test is whether a reasonable time passed under the circumstances of this case.

The jury retired to deliberate, and following its deliberation, the jury returned, finding defendant guilty of first-degree premeditated murder, MCL 750.316(1)(a).The trial court imposed a life imprisonment sentence without the possibility of parole for that conviction.

Defendant appealed, arguing that the prosecution failed to present sufficient proof to support the elements of premeditation and deliberation, and therefore his first-degree premeditated murder conviction rested upon insufficient evidence.The Court of Appeals agreed with defendant, finding that there was sufficient evidence to 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 312(1992),² and explained that it found the circumstances surrounding the killing as the most significant factor.Oros , 320 Mich. App. at 155–156, 904 N.W.2d 209.The Court of Appeals rejected the prosecution’s argument that defendant had adequate time to consciously reconsider his actions in a "second look," believing that this Court in Hoffmeister excluded the notion that premeditation could be formed between successive stab wounds.Id . at 156–157, 904 N.W.2d 209.Based on this understanding, the Court of Appeals vacated defendant’s first-degree premeditated murder jury conviction, imposed a second-degree murder conviction, and ordered a remand to the trial court for sentencing as to that offense.Id . at 167–168, 904 N.W.2d 209.

The prosecution sought leave to appeal in this Court, and we directed the Clerk to schedule oral argument on the application and the parties to address the following issue:

[W]hether the Court of Appeals properly viewed the trial record for sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation in the light most favorable to the prosecution, including drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the jury verdict, and whether the record evidence is sufficient to sustain defendant’s conviction for first-degree premeditated murder.People v. Gonzalez , 468 Mich. 636, 640–641[664 N.W.2d 159](2003).[ People v. Oros , 501 Mich. 883, 901 N.W.2d 625(2017).]

II.STANDARD OF REVIEW

"In determining whether sufficient evidence exists to sustain a conviction, this Court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and considers whether there was sufficient evidence to justify a rational trier of fact in finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."People v. Harris , 495 Mich. 120, 126, 845 N.W.2d 477(2014).But more importantly, "[t]he 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.The scope of review is the same whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial.Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from that evidence can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of a crime."People v. Nowack...