People v. Searcy
| Docket Number | 363580 |
| Decision Date | 21 December 2023 |
| Parties | PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THELONIOUS DESHANE-EAR SEARCY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
UNPUBLISHED
Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 04-012890-01-FC.
Before: JANSEN, P.J., and CAVANAGH and GADOLA, JJ.
The prosecution appeals the trial court's October 3, 2022 order granting the motion of defendant to dismiss his criminal charges of first-degree murder, MCL 750.316(1)(a); assault with intent to murder (AWIM), MCL 750.83; and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b.[1] We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
On September 5, 2004, a shooting occurred at the corner of Conner Street and Whithorn Street near the Detroit City Airport in Detroit. That night, an event known as a "Black Party" was taking place in the area. The area was crowded with traffic and pedestrians. At about 9:00 p.m., several eyewitnesses saw a man approach the back of a silver Corvette, which contained the murder victim and the assault victim, and begin shooting. A bullet struck the assault victim's hip, causing him injury, and the murder victim died from multiple gunshot wounds. Although some eyewitnesses believed the gunshots came from two separate guns, the eyewitnesses did not see a second shooter. Latasha Boatright, who witnessed the shootings, saw the shooter run into a nearby party store. Casings from two different weapons were found at the scene including seven .45-caliber casings and eight .40-caliber casings.
Three eyewitnesses identified defendant as the shooter from a photographic lineup. On the morning of November 30, 2004, law enforcement went to an apartment in an attempt to locate and arrest defendant. Officers had to force entry into the apartment, and defendant was found hiding behind drywall. Officers discovered a .45-caliber semiautomatic handgun in the bedroom where defendant was located. Ballistics testing revealed the .45-caliber casings found at the scene of the shooting were fired from that gun.
Defendant was charged with first-degree premeditated murder, AWIM, and felony-firearm. Trial was held over several days in May 2005. The prosecution presented a myriad of witnesses, and four eyewitnesses identified defendant as the shooter at trial. The prosecutor's theory revolved around a claim that defendant mistakenly shot the murder victim in an attempt to kill DeAnthony Witcher, who drove a Corvette that looked similar to the murder victim's Corvette. Witcher testified defendant was upset with him after defendant lost several hundred dollars while gambling at Witcher's home in the summer of 2003. According to Witcher, in November 2003, defendant shot him and continued to threaten him. Although Witcher did not see or hear the shooting on September 5, 2004, he was in the area in a silver Corvette.
Defendant did not testify at trial. Instead, he presented the testimony of several friends and family members, each of whom testified that defendant was at a barbecue at the home of his mother throughout the evening of September 5, 2004. Additionally, defendant's mother and grandmother testified the apartment where defendant was arrested belonged to his grandmother, and defendant was merely visiting at the time of his arrest. Defendant's grandmother explained the .45-caliber gun did not belong to defendant and was left in her apartment by a man named Jeffrey Daniels, who had driven her home one day and was killed in September 2004.
The jury convicted defendant as charged, and he was sentenced. Defendant appealed, and this Court affirmed his convictions. People v Searcy (Searcy I), unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued October 26, 2006 (Docket No. 263347). Defendant applied for leave to appeal from this Court's decision, and our Supreme Court denied leave. People v Searcy, 477 Mich. 1112 (2007). Thereafter, defendant filed two motions for relief from judgment, each of which was denied by the trial court.
In August 2015, Vincent Smothers, who was in prison and had already confessed to being paid to commit multiple murders, wrote a letter to defendant, admitting he killed the murder victim "during a botched robbery on Whithorn and Conners [sic] across from the city airport." In December 2015, Smothers executed an affidavit, which detailed his involvement in the September 2004 crimes. Specifically, Smothers averred he shot the murder victim with a .40-caliber handgun. Smothers also implicated Daniels in the crimes, indicating Daniels fired a .45-caliber handgun near the murder victim's Corvette. According to Smothers, he tasked Daniels with discarding the guns.
In 2017, defendant filed his third motion for relief from judgment. An evidentiary hearing took place over several days in March and May 2018. Smothers testified and confessed to murdering the murder victim. During the hearing, it was discovered a bullet removed from the murder victim's chest had conflicting descriptions. After the envelope was opened and the contents were examined, it was determined the envelope contained "a .40 S&W . . . fired bullet." On December 3, 2018, the trial court issued an opinion and order, denying defendant's third motion for relief from judgment. Defendant appealed, and this Court reversed and remanded for a new trial. People v Searcy (Searcy II), unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued February 11, 2021 (Docket No. 349169), pp 12-13. The prosecution sought leave to appeal this decision, which was denied. People v Searcy, 507 Mich. 1007 (2021).
On April 15, 2022, defendant moved for dismissal of his criminal charges based on allegations that his due-process rights were violated in relation to the 2005 trial. In relevant part, defendant alleged: (1) the prosecution suppressed information about the bullet removed from the murder victim's chest; (2) the prosecution either suppressed certain video footage from the party store located near the scene of the shooting or members of law enforcement destroyed the video footage; and (3) the prosecution failed to provide defendant with information about Witcher's arrest history. The prosecution opposed the motion.
In an October 3, 2022 opinion and order, the trial court granted defendant's motion, concluding due-process violations occurred in relation to the 2005 trial. The trial court dismissed defendant's criminal charges with prejudice. This appeal followed.
"[T]his Court . . . reviews de novo constitutional claims...." People v Burger, 331 Mich.App. 504, 516; 953 N.W.2d 424 (2020). "This Court reviews a trial court's decision on a motion to dismiss charges against a defendant for an abuse of discretion." People v Ali, 328 Mich.App. 538, 541; 938 N.W.2d 783 (2019) (quotation marks and citation omitted). "An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's decision is outside the range of principled outcomes." People v Montague, 338 Mich.App. 29, 37; 979 N.W.2d 406 (2021) (quotation marks and citation omitted). "The trial court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error." People v Tardy, Mich. App,; N.W.2d (2023) (Docket No. 360026); slip op at 4. "Clear error exists when the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Id. at; slip op at 4 (quotation marks and citation omitted).
The prosecution argues the trial court improperly dismissed defendant's criminal charges based on its conclusion that due-process violations occurred in relation to the alleged suppression of the information related to the bullet removed from the murder victim's chest and Witcher's arrest record. We agree, although for reasons different from those raised by the prosecution on appeal.
Defendant essentially argues his due-process rights were violated at the 2005 trial because the bullet, information concerning the bullet, and Witcher's arrest history were suppressed in violation of Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 83; 83 S.Ct. 1194; 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). "[T]he suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." Id. at 87. "To establish a Brady violation, a defendant must establish that (1) the prosecution has suppressed evidence; (2) that is favorable to the accused; and (3) that is material." Burger, 331 Mich.App. at 517 (quotation marks and citation omitted). Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted).
Defendant and the prosecution focus their attention on events that occurred between 2004 and 2018. However, defendant has already been granted a new trial, rendering most of the parties' arguments irrelevant. To the extent the trial court sought to punish the prosecution for due-process violations that occurred in 2005 when dismissing the criminal charges, this was improper. In People v Aceval, 282 Mich.App. 379, 391; 764 N.W.2d 285 (2009), this Court explained:
[T]he crux of the due process analysis in cases of alleged prosecutorial misconduct is whether the defendant received a fair trial. The remedy when a defendant receives an unfair trial because of prosecutorial misconduct is a new and, presumably, fair trial. This remedy naturally flows from the type of harm that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial