People v. Usher, Docket No. 54642
| Decision Date | 24 January 1983 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 54642 |
| Citation | 328 N.W.2d 628,121 Mich.App. 345 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frank Lee USHER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Edward Reilly Wilson, Chief Appellate Asst. Pros. Atty., and Andrea L. Solak, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
Culpepper & Sorise by Domnick J. Sorise, Detroit, for defendant-appellant on appeal.
Before DANHOF, C.J., and KAUFMAN and RILEY, JJ.
Following a jury trial, defendant Frank Lee Usher was found guilty as charged of first-degree murder, M.C.L. Sec. 750.316; M.S.A. Sec. 28.548, and felony-firearm, M.C.L. Sec. 750.227b; M.S.A. Sec. 28.424(2). Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first-degree murder conviction, the sentence to be preceded by a jail sentence of two years for the felony-firearm conviction. He appeals by right.
Defendant first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him at his preliminary examination.
An examining magistrate has a duty to bind a defendant over for a trial if it appears that a crime has been committed and there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed it. M.C.L. Sec. 766.13; M.S.A. Sec. 28.931, People v. Asta, 337 Mich. 590, 60 N.W.2d 472 (1953); People v. Goode, 106 Mich.App. 129, 308 N.W.2d 448 (1981). A magistrate should not discharge a defendant when the evidence is conflicting or if it raises reasonable doubts of the defendant's guilt. Instead, such questions should be left for the jury to decide at a trial. People v. Doss, 406 Mich. 90, 276 N.W.2d 9 (1979); People v. Tait, 99 Mich.App. 19, 297 N.W.2d 853 (1980). Even if a reviewing court disagrees with the examining judge's decision, it may not reverse the determination of probable cause absent a finding of a clear abuse of discretion. People v. Doss, supra; People v. Michael Johnson, 105 Mich.App. 498, 307 N.W.2d 357 (1981).
We agree with defendant's contention that the magistrate's preliminary ruling, that hearsay was per se admissible to determine probable cause, was erroneous. See People v. Asta, supra; People v. Duncan, 388 Mich. 489, 201 N.W.2d 629 (1977). We cannot agree, however, that this ruling mandates reversal of defendant's convictions. The introduction of incompetent evidence is harmless if probable cause is established by other competent evidence. In any event, defendant chose to adopt as his own the testimony given at a prior preliminary examination held for persons who allegedly participated with defendant in the crimes. Our task, then, is to review the testimony given at the prior preliminary examination to determine if it was an abuse of discretion for the magistrate to decide that the testimony given there established probable cause with respect to defendant.
The alleged crimes arose out of a series of events at the Democratic Club, a private club in Detroit, culminating in the killings of three people, their subsequent beheadings, and amputation of five of their six hands. The evidence showed that two men were wired money to travel from California to Detroit and testimony indicated that they were in the club the evening of the killings. With respect to defendant, the evidence showed that on the morning of the killings, he was allowed entrance to the private club by the doorman. The three victims arrived soon after the defendant arrived. Orders had been given that people were not to be let into the club. After the killings, defendant was seen at a table with the men from California while others cleaned up the blood in the club. One of the men was counting money. Muffled sounds were later heard coming from a storage room. A witness saw an amputated hand in a storage room and defendant exiting from it. A witness to the events was nervous and shaking as he told the club cook that defendant had cut off the woman's head. 1 Defendant and the men from California left the club together. Club members then proceeded with an orderly clean-up of the club, including the disposal of guns and a meat cleaver that had not previously been on the premises. The autopsy report showed that the victims' death was caused by gunshot wounds to their backs and heads, and not as a result of their subsequent decapitations.
Defendant does not contest that the deaths were due to a murder in the first degree. Instead, defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the prosecution's theory that defendant aided or abetted in the murders.
The term "aiding or abetting" includes all forms of assistance. The term comprehends "all words or deeds which may support, encourage, or incite the commission of the crime". People v. Palmer, 392 Mich. 370, 220 N.W.2d 393 (1974). The amount of aid or advice is immaterial so long as it had the effect of inducing the crime. People v. Washburn, 285 Mich. 119, 280 N.W. 132 (1938), app. den., 305 U.S. 577, 59 S.Ct. 355, 83 L.Ed. 363 (1939). One aids or abets when he takes conscious action to make the criminal venture succeed. People v. Wright (On Remand), 99 Mich.App. 801, 298 N.W.2d 857 (1980); People v. Boose, 109 Mich.App. 455, 311 N.W.2d 390 (1981). Contrary to defendant's interpretation, People v. Tunnacliff, 375 Mich. 298, 134 N.W.2d 682 (1965), does not require that the prosecution show that the defendant aided or abetted any particular person.
We find that the evidence produced established probable cause to believe that defendant aided or abetted in the killing of the three victims. While defendant is correct in stating that the decapitation alone cannot establish probable cause to believe defendant aided or abetted, defendant is incorrect in stating that post-death evidence is irrelevant to the determination. See People v. Hooper, 50 Mich.App. 186, 212 N.W.2d 786 (1973), lv. den. 391 Mich. 808 (1974); People v. Cismadija, 167 Mich. 210, 132 N.W. 489 (1911). The decapitation can be viewed as a means to destroy evidence of the crime and shows consciousness of guilt. There was probable cause to believe that defendant's presence was part of a preconceived plan to kill the victims and dispose of the evidence. The examining magistrate did not abuse his discretion in binding defendant over for trial.
Defendant also argues that there was insufficient evidence to support binding him over on the charge of felony-firearm. We agree. In People v. Johnson, 411 Mich. 50, 54, 303 N.W.2d 442 (1981), the Supreme Court held that:
While evidence was produced at the trial that tended to show that defendant gave his gun to one of the participants, no such evidence was introduced at the preliminary examination. The prosecutor conceded this point during oral argument. Defendant's felony-firearm conviction must be reversed. See People v. Kennedy, 9 Mich.App. 346, 155 N.W.2d 855 (1968), rev'd on other grounds, 384 Mich. 339, 183 N.W.2d 297 (1971).
Defendant next contends that insufficient evidence was produced at the trial.
When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence against him at trial, the reviewing court must determine, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, whether a rational trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Delongchamps, 103 Mich.App. 151, 302 N.W.2d 626 (1981), lv. den. 412 Mich. 857 (1981).
The evidence introduced at the preliminary...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Unger
...be viewed as an effort to destroy evidence of the crime of murder, thereby showing a consciousness of guilt. See People v. Usher, 121 Mich.App. 345, 351, 328 N.W.2d 628 (1982), overruled in part on other grounds People v. Perry, 460 Mich. 55, 64-65, 594 N.W.2d 477 Defendant's own statements......
-
People v. Hall
...in addition to that which should have been excluded, the decision to bind over the defendant can stand. See People v. Usher, 121 Mich.App. 345, 349, 328 N.W.2d 628 (1982), and People v. Johnson, supra 427 Mich. at 116, 398 N.W.2d 219. However, wherethere is no other admissible evidence suff......
-
People v. Burton
...149 Mich.App. 452, 386 N.W.2d 213 (1986); see also People v. Hungate, 27 Mich.App. 496, 183 N.W.2d 634 (1970); People v. Usher, 121 Mich.App. 345, 328 N.W.2d 628 (1982). 32 The majority disregards the fact that the victim's underclothes and shoes were found in the defendant's possession and......
-
Harris v. Booker
...the firearm, nor was there evidence introduced to establish that he assisted in obtaining or retaining it."); People v. Usher, 121 Mich.App. 345, 351-52, 328 N.W.2d 628 (1982) (overruled in part on other grounds by People v. Perry, 460 Mich. 55, 64-65, 594 N.W.2d 477 (1999)) (reversing felo......