People v. Richardson

Decision Date16 October 2003
Docket NumberDocket No. 120223, COA No. 234208.
Citation469 Mich. 916,669 N.W.2d 797
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis RICHARDSON, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

By order of March 18, 2002, the application for leave to appeal was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v. Yost (Docket No. 119889). On order of the Court, the opinion having been issued on April 23, 2003, 468 Mich. 122, 659 N.W.2d 604 (2003), the application is again considered, and it is DENIED because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

CORRIGAN, C.J., concurs and states as follows:

I concur in the order denying leave to appeal. Defendant, a Lord & Taylor security guard, was charged with involuntary manslaughter arising out of an altercation in the parking lot of a mall. The altercation began when security personnel confronted suspected shoplifters. The victim, Frederick Finley, was seated in a nearby car and entered the fray in an apparent effort to prevent the arrest of the suspects. Defendant put his arm around the victim's neck, subdued him and knocked him to ground. Defendant then held the victim in this manner on the ground. The victim was rendered unconscious, and he was pronounced dead after reaching a hospital.

The prosecutor's medical expert, Dr. Boguslaw Pietak, performed an autopsy and concluded that the cause of death was asphyxia due to neck compression. A defense medical expert, Dr. Ljubisa Jovan Dragovic, opined that the stress and excitement of the altercation had caused the victim's heart to fail.

Following a preliminary examination, the district court dismissed the case. The court found insufficient evidence that the victim had died of asphyxia and that defendant's conduct amounted to gross negligence. The circuit court reversed and reinstated the case. The Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal,1 but this Court then remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.2 On remand, the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court order reinstating the charge of involuntary manslaughter.3

In conducting a preliminary examination, the magistrate does not act as the trier of fact. The magistrate thus may not refuse to bind a defendant over for trial merely because the evidence conflicts or raises a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. People v. Yost, 468 Mich. 122, 659 N.W.2d 604 (2003). In this case, the circuit court thoroughly analyzed the evidence presented at the preliminary examination and concluded that factual issues existed for the jury to resolve. The court concluded that the magistrate had improperly weighed evidence and had improperly made a credibility choice between the competing medical experts.

The circuit court observed that the medical experts had agreed on many physical findings, but differed in their conclusions regarding the cause of death. Dr. Pietak's examination revealed bruising and hemorrhaging, suggesting that the blood vessels in the victim's neck had been compressed. Blunt force trauma or pressure applied to the neck, such as a choke hold or carotid hold, would have caused those bruises. Dr. Dragovic agreed that blunt force trauma had occurred, but he opined that the strain of the physical confrontation had led to heart failure.

The circuit court also noted that several witnesses had presented conflicting testimony regarding defendant's actions and the victim's behavior and medical condition during the altercation. These evidentiary conflicts included:

• Whether the victim's leg and other movements resulted from convulsions or voluntary action;
• Whether the victim was kicking, raising himself off the ground, or resisting in a combative manner;
• Whether the victim was breathing and speaking, or unconscious;
• Whether the victim had a pulse;
• Whether the petechia in the victim's larynx was caused by intubation or asphyxia;
• Whether the victim suffered physical trauma;
• Whether the victim died from asphyxia; and
• The amount of force that defendant used on the victim.

The circuit court noted that defendant was the only person known to have been on top of the victim, with his arms around the victim's neck and head, while the victim was handcuffed.

The circuit court correctly concluded that the evidence presents factual issues to be resolved at trial. It is for the jury to determine whether the amount and duration of force applied to defendant's neck was reasonable or excessive under the circumstances, and whether that force caused the victim's death. The magistrate improperly invaded the jury's domain in resolving those issues.

TAYLOR, J., dissents and states as follows:

I would peremptorily reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals because I agree with Justice Markman that the magistrate did not abuse her discretion in concluding there was no probable cause to bind defendant over on charges of involuntary manslaughter due to gross negligence.

MARKMAN, J., dissents and states as follows:

I would peremptorily reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals because I do not believe that the magistrate abused her discretion in concluding that there was no probable cause to bind defendant over on charges of involuntary manslaughter on the basis of gross negligence. In my judgment, not only did defendant not act in a grossly negligent manner, but, when considered in light of all the circumstances, his actions were reasonable.

I. Facts

This case arises out of the June 22, 2000, death of Frederick Finley, in the parking lot of the Lord & Taylor department store in Fairlane Town Center in Dearborn. Defendant was employed by Lord & Taylor as a loss prevention officer and security guard. Defendant and fellow security officers observed a group of four individuals engaged in suspected shoplifting of merchandise at the store.4 Finley was part of this group of individuals.5 The officers stopped the group outside the store to inquire about what had been observed. After telling Carla Finley that Tiara Walker had been observed stealing a bracelet and that the group would have to return to the office to fill out paperwork regarding the incident, Carla Finley became hostile. She, Walker, and the other individuals in the group ignored this request and continued walking toward their car, about seventy-five feet from the store entrance. As members of the group began getting into their car, the security guards told them that they could not leave the premises. At this point, Finley, a 5' 10", 273-pound man, got out of the driver's seat of the car and approached Officer Nowlin who was standing behind the car. Finley stated to Nowlin: "I will kick your ass," and then, with both fists, punched Nowlin in the chest. The force of these blows knocked Nowlin back into a parked car. Carla Finley, described by Linnea Booth as a "woman much larger" than her, then assaulted Booth, throwing "wild punches," striking her about the face, and knocking her glasses off. Carla Finley then grabbed Booth around the neck with her hand and wrestled her to the ground. As Booth was pinned on the ground and still being assaulted by Carla Finley, she yelled for Mary Graney to assist her. When Graney attempted to grab Carla Finley's arm, both Finley and Walker began to beat Graney, hitting her in the face and on the back as she crouched in a defensive posture. Booth then got up and attempted to aid Graney. Realizing that they were dealing with an extremely violent situation, both Booth and Graney put their hands up and told Carla Finley to stop. However, Carla Finley continued her assault on Booth. When Graney turned to summon additional help, Carla Finley began to enter the vehicle and yelled: "pop the fucking trunk, pop the fucking trunk, I'm gonna shoot everybody." During this time, Frederick Finley continued to assault Nowlin, who yelled for someone to prevent the trunk from being opened. Both Booth and Roderick Alexander went to the trunk of the vehicle to prevent Carla Finley from gaining access to it. Walker and Carla Finley then got into the car at the urging of Gordon, who stated that they would come back later for Frederick Finley. Booth attempted to pick her glasses up off the ground, and the driver of the car placed it into reverse and began driving toward Booth. Booth testified that she pushed off from the vehicle to prevent it from hitting her. Meanwhile, Frederick Finley was struggling with defendant and Nowlin. Defendant eventually restrained the victim only after, according to the circuit court, he "got his arm around [Mr. Finley's] large neck and succeeded in subduing [him], finally throwing or knocking him to the ground." The remainder of the group fled in the car. Finley continued to kick and to struggle while he was on the ground and, although one witness stated that the guards were "a little bit rougher than they needed to be," all the witnesses agreed that it did not appear that defendant was choking or strangling the victim.6 Finley later died on the way to the hospital. Defendant received multiple abrasions on his arms and shoulders, and received a "pretty bad cut" on his forehead as a result of the struggle with Mr. Finley.7

Defendant was charged with involuntary manslaughter.8 It was the prosecutor's theory that defendant had acted in a "grossly negligent" manner, that defendant had actually choked or strangled Mr. Finley, and that the cause of death was asphyxiation. At a preliminary examination to determine whether probable cause existed to bind defendant over for trial, the magistrate concluded that there was insufficient evidence to find that defendant had committed the crime of involuntary manslaughter. She found that the prosecutor's expert witness, Wayne County Assistant Medical Examiner Boguslaw Pietak, lacked credibility regarding the cause of Finley's death. According to the magistrate, Pietak's opinion that Finley had been asphyxiated as a result of force...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Chiropractic Council v. Com'R Fin. & Ins.
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 28 d3 Junho d3 2006
    ... ... 26. United States v. Corrick, 298 U.S. 435, 440, 56 S.Ct. 829, 80 L.Ed. 1263 (1936) ... 27. See People v. Smith, 420 Mich. 1, 360 N.W.2d 841 (1984); Ver Hoven Woodward Chevrolet, Inc. v. Dunkirk, 351 Mich. 190, 88 N.W.2d 408 (1958); People v ... Richardson, 469 Mich. 923, 929, 669 N.W.2d 797 (2003) (Corrigan, C.J., concurring) (citation omitted) ... 7. At first blush, this position would appear to ... ...
  • Williams v. Lafler, Civil No. 2:08-10472
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • 24 d3 Agosto d3 2011
    ... ... Keith changed his clothes and ran out the door with the gun in his hand. Charles did not have a weapon.          People v. Williams, No. 00-000326-01, * 2-5 (Wayne County Circuit Court, July 16, 2007).         In addition to this testimony, Sean Ellis, the ... ...
  • People v. Anderson
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 16 d5 Março d5 2018
    ... ... To the contrary, the adversarial nature of a preliminary examination would be largely meaningless if a magistrate were required to accept as true any testimony that is not patently incredible or that does not defy physical reality. See People v. Richardson , 469 Mich. 923, 938, 669 N.W.2d 797 ( MARKMAN , J., 501 Mich. 187dissenting) ("[I]f a magistrate is obligated to accept at face value any testimony, there would be little reason to allow for cross-examination or for a defense presentation at all at the preliminary examination ... Because MCL ... ...
  • Montes v. Trombley
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 17 d3 Março d3 2010
    ... ... and climax control lotion. [Montes] testified that he picked up the victim merely to help her find her mother.        People v. Montes, No. 223539, 2002 WL ... 484613, at *1 (Mich.Ct.App. Mar.22, 2002), ... vacated and remanded on a state-law sentencing issue, No ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT