People v. Turner
| Decision Date | 18 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | 353939 |
| Parties | PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EUGENE SCOTT TURNER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
UNPUBLISHED
Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 19-006217-01-FC
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Shapiro and Gadola, JJ.
Defendant appeals from his bench-trial convictions for first-degree murder, MCL 750.316(a), possession of a firearm during commission of felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227, and tampering with evidence, MCL 750.483a(6)(b). For the reasons stated in this opinion, we affirm.
This case arises from the shooting death of Robin Mcardle. Defendant ran an illicit drug dealing business, and Mcardle brought new customers to defendant. Defendant's ex-girlfriend, Lashawndra Bell, testified that there was an "issue" between defendant and Mcardle because defendant believed Mcardle was stealing his customers. Defendant testified at trial and denied there ever being bad blood between Mcardle and himself.
On the day leading up to the murder, defendant arrived at the home of Daniel Sanders with Dynada Bulley (defendant's then-girlfriend), Mcardle and a friend referred to only as "Drew." Bell was also present at Sanders's home and at one point she walked into the bathroom and saw defendant with Drew. Recounting the incident at trial, Bell testified that defendant appeared angry and stated, "I hate snitches," before shooting a handgun indiscriminately without hitting anyone. At the time of this incident, Mcardle was in the living room. Defendant admitted that he fired his handgun in the bathroom at Sanders's house, but denied he had done so because he was mad at Mcardle.
After this incident, defendant, Bulley, Mcardle and Drew left Sanders's house together. The four got into Bulley's Chevrolet Impala, bound for defendant's cousin's home. Defendant drove with Bulley in the front passenger seat; Mcardle rode in the back-passenger seat directly behind defendant. According to Bulley, while driving defendant suddenly yelled, "I hate snakes," pulled out his gun, aimed it toward the backseat, and fired the gun four or five times. No one was shot, but according to Bulley, Mcardle immediately exited from the Impala and ran away. Defendant chased after her on foot, and when she tried to flag down a passing car for help, defendant waved his handgun, and the car drove off. Eventually defendant and Mcardle returned to the car together. Bulley later saw Mcardle with a gun and suggested that defendant may have given it to her so that she would feel safe; Bulley did not believe the gun had any bullets in it. Defendant denied shooting his gun in the Impala, denied that Mcardle left the car, and denied saying "I hate snakes."
Bulley testified that when they arrived at defendant's cousin's home, defendant instructed her to go inside and have his cousin bring a gun to him. Bulley went inside and spoke with defendant's cousin, while defendant and Mcardle waited in the car. Bulley testified that defendant's cousin put a gun in her coat and went outside; when she returned, she no longer had the gun. When the Impala drove off, only defendant and Mcardle were in the car.
After Bell left Sanders's house, she walked to the home of Paul Cokewell. Bell was worried about Mcardle and used a friend's phone to call her. Cokewell was present for the phone call. Bell testified that Mcardle answered the phone and was crying and sounded "very scared." Bell could hear defendant "hollering at her" in the background. Bell heard Mcardle say, She heard defendant respond "It's because of you." And Bell also heard Mcardle say, "Why are you doing this to me," and, Cokewell also testified at trial and his account of the phone call was largely consistent with Bell's version.
Bulley testified that defendant returned to his cousin's home about 15 to 20 minutes after leaving with Mcardle and that he was the only one in the car. Bulley observed the back window on the driver's side of the Impala was "busted," and blood was in the interior of the car on the driver's side of the rear passenger seat. At trial, defendant admitted that he had driven off in the Impala with Mcardle, and that she was shot during this time. However, defendant maintained that an unnamed drug dealer[1] had met up with him and shot Mcardle. Defendant's drug dealer then directed defendant to drive to a vacant lot. According to defendant, once at the vacant lot, the drug dealer pulled Mcardle out of the Impala and shot her again.
Raysheane Johnson-Louie lived next to the vacant lot. She testified that she saw at least three figures in the Impala and that the driver and a passenger from the back seat exited the vehicle and pulled a third figure from the car, who had been seated in the rear of the car behind the driver's seat. Johnson-Louie testified that the driver shot the third person three times. Police arrived on the scene shortly thereafter to find Mcardle dead in the vacant lot next to Johnson-Louie's house, having sustained two gunshot wounds to her head and one to her neck.
After defendant arrived back at his cousin's house, he and Bulley drove the Impala to a residential street and tried to light it on fire. Defendant and Bulley then drove in a separate vehicle to another gas station to get more gasoline, but by the time they arrived back to the Impala, two police cars were on the scene. The two turned around and booked a hotel room for the night. Once at the hotel, at defendant's request, Bulley made a false police report that someone had stolen her car. In the Impala, the police found six 9mm shell casings; four on the front passenger seat and two in the rear seats.
Bulley was charged as an accessory after the fact and arrested. She was offered a plea deal: probation in exchange for her testimony against defendant. As part of this plea deal, Bulley made a written statement to police on May 30, 2019, in which she stated that defendant had confessed to killing Mcardle and had explained his motive. At trial, when the prosecutor started questioning her about this statement, Bulley had issues remembering what she had told the police. However, she affirmed multiple times that everything in her police statement was true.
Couched in terms of a confrontational-clause argument, [2] defendant contends that the trial court convicted him on the basis of evidence extraneous to the record. Specifically, defendant challenges the trial court's reliance on Bulley's May 30, 2019 police statement rather than her testimony at trial. Defendant argues that the police statement was admissible only for impeachment purposes, and by relying on it as substantive evidence of defendant's guilt, the trial court based its verdict from evidence outside the record. We disagree.[3]
The trial court's verdict was based, in part, on Bulley's testimony that on at least two occasions defendant confessed to the killing and said why he did it. While that is an accurate recitation of Bulley's police statement, at trial Bulley either denied making certain statements, such as asking defendant what had happened to Mcardle which prompted the purported confession, or claimed a lack of memory. Significantly, however, the record shows that Bulley adopted her police statement as true. Three times Bulley was asked if she had told the truth in her May 30, 2019 statement to police, and three times she agreed she was truthful. Thus, although Bulley had some difficulties remembering what she said in her statement, she ultimately adopted this statement as truthful. And when a witness admits that his or her prior statement is true, the witness's prior statement becomes substantive evidence. People v Harris, 56 Mich.App. 517, 525; 224 N.W.2d 680 (1974); People v Couch, 49 Mich.App. 69, 73-74; 211 N.W.2d 250 (1973). Accordingly, we find no plain error in the trial court's reliance on the statements Bulley made to the police. Further, while Bulley claimed that she could not remember whether defendant confessed to the killing, she testified that defendant said he should have slipped Mcardle a "bold pack because she was a crackhead." In other words, Bulley testified at trial that defendant mentioned to her that he should have used a different method to kill Mcardle, which is itself a confession to the murder.
Defendant attacks several of the trial court's findings of fact as "illogical," implying the trial court drew unreasonable inferences from the evidence. In making these arguments, defendant again relies on his right to confrontation. When examining the substance of these arguments, however, it is clear that defendant is challenging specific findings and credibility determinations made by the trial court, and ultimately, the sufficiency of the evidence. See People v Latz, 318 Mich.App. 380, 385; 898 N.W.2d 229 (2016) ().[4]
To convict a defendant of first-degree murder, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the defendant intentionally killed the victim and (2) the killing was premeditated and deliberate. People v Oros, 502 Mich. 229, 240; 917 N.W.2d 559 (2018) (citation omitted); MCL 750.316(a). "To premeditate is to think about beforehand; to deliberate is to measure and evaluate the major facets of a choice or problem." Id. (quotation marks, citation and alteration omitted). Intent may be inferred from all the facts and circumstances. People v Cameron, 291 Mich.App. 599, 615; 806 N.W.2d 371 (2011).
Defendant first argues that the trial court erred by finding that...
To continue reading
Request your trial