The Procedural Background of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with assault with intent to murder and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. During his trial, the prosecution’s case hinged on testimony from the alleged victim; he testified that the defendant shot at him numerous times following an altercation. A jury found the defendant guilty, and as he was a third-offense habitual offender, he was sentenced to 20 to 60 years in prison for his assault crime and two years for his firearm offense.

Reportedly, almost ten years after his conviction, the defendant moved for relief from judgment, his second motion for relief, on the grounds that the victim completed an affidavit in which he recanted his testimony. The trial court initially granted a stay but later denied the defendant’s motion following the victim’s death. The defendant appealed.

Reversing a Conviction Due to Newly Discovered Evidence

On appeal, the court found no error with the trial court’s ruling. The court explained that a defendant can file a second motion for relief from judgment but only if there is newly discovered evidence they did not have when they filed the first motion, or there has been an intervening change in the law. As such, a defendant filing a second motion for relief must show that one of these exceptions applies before the court will consider their motion.

When a defendant files a second motion for relief based on newly discovered evidence, they will only be granted a new trial if they can establish: that the evidence was newly discovered; the new evidence is not cumulative; they could not, using reasonable diligence, have found and presented the evidence at trial; and, the new evidence makes it probable that a different outcome would occur on a retrial.

In order to determine whether newly discovered evidence would result in a different outcome, the court must first evaluate whether the evidence is credible. In the subject case, the court ultimately found that there was no way to corroborate the trustworthiness of the witness’ affidavit. Thus, the court affirmed the trial court ruling.

Talk to a Trusted Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

If the victim of a crime recants their testimony following their alleged assailant’s conviction, it may be cause for vacating a guilty verdict. If you are charged with assault or another crime, it is smart to talk to an attorney about your rights. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a trusted Michigan criminal defense lawyer who can inform you of your possible defenses and help you to pursue the best legal result available under the facts of your case. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a conference.

The Factual and Procedural History of the Case

It is reported that the defendant tackled his girlfriend, bit her neck, threw her to the ground, and pulled out her hair. When she proceeded into their house, he followed her and threatened to kill her and her disabled brother, whom the defendant also attacked. The defendant was charged with multiple assault crimes. The defendant presented an insanity defense at trial, averring that he had post-traumatic stress disorder and snapped prior to the incident.

Allegedly, the prosecution objected to the introduction of the defendant’s expert witness, a psychologist, on the grounds that his opinion was based on statements the defendant made outside of the doctor-patient relationship and therefore constituted hearsay. The court ruled that the facts on which the expert based his opinion had to be introduced into evidence, which ultimately resulted in the defendant testifying and being subjected to cross-examination. A jury found the defendant guilty on all counts, after which he appealed, arguing his attorney was ineffective regarding the presentation of his insanity defense.

Presentation of an Insanity Defense

On appeal, the court agreed with the defendant’s assertion, vacated his convictions, and remanded the matter for a new trial. While the court agreed with the trial court that the defendant’s statements were not made for the purposes of treatment and therefore were not admissible as statements made in the context of the doctor-patient relationship, the background information provided to the expert regarding the defendant’s medical history was not hearsay, as they were not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

The defendant’s attorney failed to argue that such statements were admissible for evaluation of the defendant, though, and instead required the defendant to testify. The court found that this negated the defendant’s entire theory of his case, and therefore, his attorney’s performance fell below the standard of reasonableness of a professional. As such, the court vacated the defendant’s conviction.

Talk to a Dedicated Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

While people charged with assault crimes are not required to produce evidence in their defense, in some cases, offering an affirmative defense might help them avoid a conviction. If you are charged with assault or any other crime, it is advisable to talk to an attorney about your options for pursuing a just outcome. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a dedicated Michigan criminal defense lawyer who can examine the facts of your case and develop arguments designed to help you seek the best legal outcome available. You can contact Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a conference.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was involved in an altercation with the male and female victims, his neighbors, when he was at their home. He threw a full beer can at the female victim, which hit her in the face, and then left the property. The victims called 911, and after the police arrived, they observed the defendant breaking things in his apartment. He ultimately had to be subdued and sedated.

It is reported that after the defendant’s release from jail, he went on a rampage that ultimately resulted in the death of the male victim. He was arrested and charged with first-degree murder, assault and battery, and numerous other crimes. A jury convicted him following a trial during which he represented himself with standby counsel. He appealed, arguing he was entitled to a reversal due to ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Right to Self-Representation

On appeal, the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction. In doing so, it explained that the defendant waived his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel by choosing to represent himself. The court elaborated that the Michigan Constitution and the United States Constitution both grant criminal defendants the right to represent themselves. While the right to self-representation is not explicit in the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, the right to personally defend oneself is implied by the statutory language. The Michigan Constitution expressly grants such rights.

The court noted, though, that in order to assert the right of self-representation, a defendant has to waive the right to counsel and must do so intelligently and knowingly, with adequate awareness of the relevant circumstances. In the subject case, the defendant did not argue that his waiver of the right to counsel was invalid; instead, he asserted that his decision to represent himself with standby counsel should be treated as if he had an appointed attorney. The court disagreed, noting that a defendant has the right to counsel or to represent himself but not the right to both. Thus, the court affirmed the defendant’s convictions.

Confer with an Experienced Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

Although criminal defendants have the right to represent themselves, they generally should not exercise that right as it often leads to unfavorable results. If you are accused of a violent crime, it is wise to confer with an attorney as soon as possible. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is an experienced Michigan criminal defense lawyer with the skills and resources needed to help you seek a good outcome, and if you hire him, he will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can contact Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

The Alleged Assault

It is reported that the defendant was serving a prison sentence for an unspecified conviction. A female corrections officer requested that he come to her for a shakedown, but he refused, stating she was not going to stop him from paroling and using profanity. As such, the officer did not feel comfortable performing the shakedown alone and requested assistance.

It is alleged that two additional officers responded to help escort the defendant to another unit. On the way there, the defendant spat in one of the officer’s faces. The defendant was charged with assaulting a prison employee, and during the trial, a video of the incident was played for the jury at trial. The jury convicted the defendant, and he appealed.

Acts of Violence as Defined by Michigan Law

On appeal, the defendant argued that the prosecution failed to offer evidence at trial that was sufficient to sustain his conviction. Specifically, he asserted that the crime he was charged with required proof of the use or threatened use of violence, and spitting did not constitute a violent act. The court disagreed, explaining that violence, as used in the Michigan criminal statutes, is defined as any wrongful use of physical force against another person with the intent to embarrass or harm that person.

The court elaborated that it was well established in common law that spitting on another individual is an offensive act that constitutes the intentional tort of battery. The court ultimately held that because the use of violence encompasses the use of physical force to inflict injury or cause embarrassment and because spitting can cause such harm, it constitutes a violent act. Thus, the court upheld the defendant’s conviction.

Talk to a Dedicated Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

Assault crimes can carry significant penalties, but merely because the state charges a person with an assault offense does not mean that the prosecution will be able to meet the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt. If you are faced with assault charges, it is smart to talk to an attorney about your options for seeking a favorable outcome. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a dedicated Michigan criminal defense lawyer who can gather any evidence in your favor to provide you with a strong chance of achieving a successful result. You can contact Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a conference.

The History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant and his girlfriend drove a friend to another part of the state so that the friend could sell methamphetamines. The drug purchasers believed they had been cheated and started following the defendant’s car after the transaction, and the parties engaged in multiple confrontations in two different parking lots. During the confrontations, the defendant pointed a gun at the purchasers.

It is reported that the purchasers contacted the police and advise them of the incident. The defendant was subsequently charged with assault with a dangerous weapon. He initially requested a jury trial but later asked for a bench trial, due to the fact that it would be conducted one month earlier than a jury trial. He was convicted and sentenced as a habitual offender to 30 months to 15 years in prison. He appealed.

Waiver of the Right to a Jury Trial

On appeal, the defendant argued that he did not voluntarily waive his right to a jury trial as he was forced to choose between a speedy trial and a trial before a jury. The court disagreed and denied his appeal. First, the court noted that the defendant did not raise the issue before the trial court, and therefore it was not preserved for appeal. As such, the court reviewed the issue for plain error, meaning a clear mistake that prejudiced the defendant by affecting the outcome of the lower court proceedings.

The court explained that reversal is only appropriate when the forfeited plain error led to the conviction of a defendant that is actually innocent or substantially impacts the integrity, fairness, or reputation of judicial proceedings. In the subject case, contrary to the defendant’s assertion, the court found that he was adequately apprised of his right to a jury trial and willingly waived that right. Thus, his appeal was denied.

Meet with an Experienced Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

A person’s constitutional rights do not cease when they are charged with a crime, and if their rights are violated during the course of a criminal proceeding, it may be grounds for vacating any conviction entered against them. If you are accused of assault or another criminal offense, it is wise to meet with an attorney to talk about your options. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is an experienced Michigan criminal defense lawyer with the skills and knowledge needed to provide you with a strong chance of achieving a good outcome, and if you hire him, he will work tirelessly on your behalf. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a conference.

The Facts of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with assault with a dangerous weapon and possession of a firearm while committing a felony. The charges arose out of an incident involving a minor, during which the defendant allegedly told the minor he would kill him and fired a gun at him. The defendant was convicted as charged, after which he appealed.

Sufficiency of Evidence Establishing Guilt for an Assault Crime

On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence presented against him at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction. The court ultimately disagreed and denied his appeal. In doing so, the court explained that sufficiency challenges are reviewed de novo. In reviewing the evidence in question, the court must view it in the light most favorable to the prosecution and evaluate whether a reasonable fact finder could determine that the prosecution established each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

As the jury observes the witnesses and the evidence and makes credibility determinations, the reviewing court should not interfere with the jury’s role in assessing the weight of the evidence. The court explained that circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from such evidence can constitute sufficient proof of the elements of a crime and noted that the prosecution does not need to negate every possible theory of innocence.

In the subject case, the court found that there was adequate evidence to support the defendant’s conviction; namely, a reasonable jury could find that the defendant attempted to commit a battery and, in doing so, placed the minor in fear of receiving an immediate battery. The court found the remainder of the defendant’s arguments unavailing. As such, the court denied the defendant’s appeal and affirmed his convictions.

Talk to a Trusted Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

A conviction for an assault crime can result in significant penalties. If you are charged with assault, it is prudent to talk to an attorney about your possible defenses. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a trusted Michigan criminal defense lawyer who can advise of your rights and help you to seek the best legal outcome available under the facts of your case. You can contact Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

Background of the Case

It is alleged that the defendants, husband, and wife, were charged with first and third-degree home invasion. The charges arose out of an incident in which they, along with the husband’s mother, went to the home of another man to pick up the mother’s partner. When they arrived, the man reportedly opened the door briefly and then grabbed the partner and dragged her into another room.

Reportedly, the husband and wife heard the partner screaming for help and entered the home without the man’s permission. A physical altercation ensued. A jury convicted the defendants as charged. They appealed, arguing that their attorneys were ineffective because they failed to request a jury instruction on the defense of others. The intermediate appellate court affirmed their convictions, and they appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.

Force Used in the Defense of Others

On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court found that the defendants were prejudiced and received ineffective assistance from their attorneys and therefore remanded the case for a new trial. The court explained that under Michigan’s defense of others doctrine, a person could use force to defend another individual if they reasonably believe that the individual is in immediate danger of harm and the force is necessary to prevent that harm. If the attack reasonably appears to be deadly, deadly force is permissible.

Whether the defense of others doctrine applies depends on the facts of the case, not the charges brought against the defendant. In the subject case, the court found that the doctrine was applicable regardless of the fact the defendants were not charged with assault crimes. The court further explained that pursuant to the Constitution, criminal defendants have the right to present a defense, and errors with regard to jury instructions can interfere with this right.

Affirmative defense instructions are not automatically given to jurors following a defendant’s request, however. Instead, the defendant bears the burden of offering evidence from which the jury could find the essential elements of the defense are present. If a criminal defendant offers such evidence, the instruction should be given. In the subject case, the defendants offered evidence that they believed their use of force was necessary to prevent harm of another, but their attorneys failed to request jury instructions on the doctrine of defense of others, which the court deemed unreasonable. Thus, it reversed their conviction.

Talk to a Seasoned Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

Actions taken in self-defense are often justified under the law, and many criminal defendants who acted in the protection of themselves and others can escape convictions. If you are accused of an assault offense, you should talk to an attorney about your potential defenses. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a seasoned Michigan criminal defense attorney who can assess the facts of your case and gather the evidence needed to provide you with a strong chance of a favorable result. You can contact Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

The History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged with sexual assault. During the trial, the victim testified that she was unconscious and woke up to the defendant strangling her and having sex with her. Additionally, another woman testified that on a previous occasion, she slept on the defendant’s couch and woke up to the defendant strangling her and having sex with her. The jury found the defendant guilty as charged. He appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecution to admit prior bad acts evidence.

The Introduction of Prior Bad Acts Evidence

The appellate court affirmed the defendant’s conviction. The court explained that, except for cases involving an abuse of discretion, an appellate court would not disturb a trial court’s decision to admit the evidence. A trial court commits an abuse of discretion if it allows evidence that is inadmissible as a matter of law.

The court noted that evidence of a defendant’s other bad acts is typically not admissible to show the defendant’s propensity to commit similar acts. Such evidence is governed by Michigan Rule of Evidence 404(b), which provides that evidence of other crimes or wrongs is not admissible to establish the character of the defendant in order to demonstrate they acted in conformance with that character.

The court clarified, though, that there is an exception for cases in which the defendant is charged with sexual assault. In such instances, the law permits the admission of evidence that the defendant engaged in other acts of sexual assault for any relevant purpose. Notably, this includes the purpose of demonstrating a defendant’s inclination to commit sexual assault.

While evidence of prior sexual assaults is generally admissible, it may be precluded if its exclusion is warranted under the Michigan Rule of Evidence 403. That rule provides that evidence may be excluded if the risk of prejudice far outweighs its probative value. The court found that that was not the case in the subject matter. As such, it affirmed the defendant’s conviction.

Confer with a Trusted Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

Generally, the courts cannot prove that a person committed a crime by introducing evidence of their behavior on other occasions, but there are exceptions. If you are charged with a criminal offense, it is smart to confer with an attorney regarding your rights. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a trusted Michigan criminal defense lawyer who can help you seek the best legal outcome possible under the facts of your case. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a conference.

The Facts of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant stabbed a woman he had previously dated in July 2018. Prior to the incident, the woman left the apartment she lived in with the defendant, and the defendant moved to Florida. At some point, she emailed the defendant and asked him to return to Michigan. According to the woman, the defendant appeared on her balcony one evening and stabbed her numerous times.

It is reported that she was taken to the hospital, where she underwent surgery. The defendant was charged with felonious assault, assault with murderous intent, and other crimes. He was convicted via a bench trial, after which he appealed, arguing in part that his convictions for assault with murderous intent and felonious assault were inconsistent verdicts.

Inconsistent Verdicts

On appeal, the court stated that while juries are permitted to render verdicts that are inconsistent or mutually exclusive, trial judges acting as finders of fact do not have the same allowances. The appellate court explained that a verdict is inconsistent if it cannot be rationally reconciled with the factual findings of the trial court.

In the subject case, the defendant argued that the means rea elements of felonious assault and assault with murderous intent were mutually exclusive, which made his convictions for both crimes for the same behavior inherently inconsistent. In other words, felonious assault is an assault with a dangerous instrument with the intent to injure the victim or place them in fear of immediate harm, while assault with murderous intent is an assault committed with the actual intent of killing the victim.

Further, the statute for felonious assault noted that it was an assault without the intent to commit murder. The court explained that where one conviction involves a specific intent and the other involves a lack of the same intent, the two are mutually exclusive. Thus, the court vacated the defendant’s felonious assault conviction.

Speak to an Experienced Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney Assault convictions can carry significant penalties, and it is smart for anyone charged with an assault crime to speak to an attorney about their rights. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is an experienced Michigan criminal defense lawyer, and if you are accused of an assault crime, he can set forth persuasive arguments on your behalf to provide you with a strong chance of obtaining a favorable outcome. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

The Alleged Assault

Reportedly, the victims were in their front yard when they heard a loud boom. They then listened to a person make a comment regarding the firing of a gun then threaten to kill them. The victims did not see the defendant but determined he was the one speaking because they recognized his voice. The person than shown a light at the female victim’s head, which they believed to be a light attached to a gun.

Allegedly, the victims returned to their apartment and called the police. The police spoke with the defendant, who advise he heard a noise that sounded like a gunshot, after which he grabbed his gun and pointed it at the victims. He was charged with assault with a deadly weapon and was convicted by a jury, after which he appealed.

The Standard of Review for Challenges to the Sufficiency of the Evidence

On appeal, the defendant argued his conviction should be overturned because there was insufficient evidence presented at trial for the jury to determine that he used a deadly weapon. The appellate court was not persuaded by his argument and affirmed his conviction. The court explained that when a party challenges the sufficiency of the State’s evidence in a criminal trial, an appellate court will review the evidence de novo in a light most favorable to the State to determine whether the fact finder would find that the elements of the charged offense were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellate court elaborated that direct evidence of guilt is not necessary, and circumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction. In the subject case, the appellate court found that the circumstantial evidence indicating that the defendant pointed a gun at the victims was more than adequate to sustain his conviction. Thus, it denied his appeal.

Confer with an Experienced Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

People accused of assault do not have to produce any evidence at trial, but the prosecution does, and if the proof offered by the State is inadequate, the defendant should be found not guilty. If you are accused of an assault defense, you should confer with an attorney regarding what measures you can take to protect your interests. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is an experienced Michigan assault defense lawyer who can advise you of your rights and gather the evidence needed to provide you with a strong chance of a successful result. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

The Alleged Assault

Reportedly, the victim visited the restaurant where the defendant worked as a manager and attempted to order food but did not have any money. As such, the defendant refused to take his order. The victim and the defendant began arguing, and the defendant obtained a gun from the back office and pointed it at the victim. The victim then left the restaurant and picked up a brick which he admitted he was going to throw through the front window of the establishment.

Allegedly, the defendant went outside to confront the victim and fired shots in his direction, one of which struck the victim in the leg. The victim left and encountered police officers a few blocks away. The officers proceeded to arrest the defendant, who was charged with numerous counts of assault with intent to do great bodily harm and unlawful use of firearms. A jury found the defendant guilty as charged, and he appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to rebut his claim of self-defense.

Proving Actions Were Taken in Self-Defense

After reviewing the evidence of record, the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction. The court explained that the State proved the defendant’s guilt with regard to the assault charges. Specifically, it demonstrated that he attempted to use force and violence against the victim with the intent to cause the victim great bodily harm.

The defendant did not dispute that there was adequate evidence to demonstrate the elements of the charged assault offenses but argued that the State did not sufficiently rebut his self-defense claim. The court noted that a person may use deadly force in self-defense if he reasonably and honestly believes it is necessary to prevent either his own imminent bodily harm or death or that of another individual. If a defendant meets the burden of producing evidence from which the jury could determine the elements necessary to establish a prima facie defense of self-defense are present, the burden then shifts to the prosecution to rebut the defense.

In the subject case, the defendant argued his actions were taken in defense of customers in the restaurant. The court noted this argument was not persuasive, as there were no customers present at the time the shots were fired. Thus, he failed to demonstrate he was acting in self-defense, and the State was not required to rebut his assertions.

Consult a Knowledgeable Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney

Assault charges carry serious penalties, but in some cases, defendants may be able to argue that their actions were justified. If you are charged with assault, it is in your best interest to consult an attorney about your potential defenses. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a knowledgeable Michigan criminal defense lawyer who is adept at helping people accused of crimes fight to protect their interests, and if you hire him, he will advocate zealously on your behalf. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the online form or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

The Subject Assault

It is reported that the defendant, her niece, and her niece’s boyfriend went to the movies together and then returned to the defendant’s home. Their accounts of what transpired after they entered the defendant’s house differed, however. Specifically, the niece and her boyfriend stated the defendant began paranoid and accused them of stealing things, and while waving a knife around, the defendant cut her niece’s hand.

Allegedly, the defendant advised that her niece and her niece’s boyfriend stole multiple items, and she picked up the knife to scare them into giving them back when she cut her niece. She was charged with felonious assault. Her niece and her niece’s boyfriend gave their accounts of what occurred at trial, and a jury found the defendant guilty as charged. She appealed, arguing in part that her counsel was ineffective.

Impeaching a Witness in a Criminal Trial

On appeal, the court initially noted that the defendant admitted to the elements of felonious assault via her testimony at trial. Regardless of that fact, though, she argued her lawyer failed to impeach her niece’s boyfriend with evidence of his prior convictions and, therefore, was ineffective.

The court explained that to establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, a person must show that an attorney’s performance was deficient and that the deficiencies prejudiced the defendant. Deficiencies can be shown by establishing that the attorney’s performance fell below an objective reasonability standard.

Here, the court noted that the boyfriend was convicted of receiving and concealing stolen property, which was a misdemeanor crime and was sentenced to probation. The Michigan Rules of Evidence provides for the admission of evidence of criminal convictions for impeachment purposes is only allowed if the crime was punishable by imprisonment for more than one year and contained an element of fraud or contained an element of false statement or dishonesty.

As the requisite elements were not present in the boyfriend’s underlying crimes, the court found that they would not be admissible, and therefore, the defendant’s attorney acted reasonably by not introducing them into evidence. Thus, it denied her appeal.

Speak to a Trusted Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer

Assault crimes may be charged as felonies that carry lengthy prison sentences, but in many instances, the State lacks the evidence needed to obtain a conviction. If you are charged with assault, it is smart to speak to an attorney about your rights. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a trusted Michigan criminal defense attorney with the skills and experience needed to obtain successful outcomes, and if you hire him, he can formulate a compelling case in your favor. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to schedule a meeting.

The Defendant’s Agreement

It is reported that the defendant was charged with theft of government funds, student loan fraud, and numerous other crimes. She entered a guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement she made with the prosecution. She then appealed the judgment in her case, averring that she had a right to appeal the timing of her sentence and the manner in which it was to be served. The government moved to dismiss her appeal, arguing that she expressly waived her right to file an appeal. After reviewing the agreement, the court ruled in favor of the government and dismissed her appeal.

Assessing the Validity of Plea Waivers Under Michigan Law

The court explained that criminal defendants might waive their right to an appeal as part of their plea agreements, but any such waiver must be voluntary and knowing. In the subject case, the defendant did not argue that her waiver was not voluntary or knowing but instead asserted that the waiver did not include challenges to the timing of her sentence or the manner in which it was to be served.

The court noted that the waiver in question stated that the defendant waived the right to appeal the sentence imposed unless it exceeded the statutory maximum. The court explained that while the defendant correctly stated that ambiguities in plea waiver agreements are construed against the government, the subject waiver was not vague or unclear. In other words, her sentence did not exceed the statutory maximum, and therefore, her appeal was barred, and any challenge to the timing or manner of the sentence was a challenge to the sentence itself.

The court declined to adopt the defendant’s reasoning that case law suggested her appeal was permissible, noting that none of the cases she cited dealt with the issue at hand. Thus, it denied her appeal.

Meet with an Experienced Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer

People accused of fraud have numerous options for how to handle their charges, and in some instances, it is prudent to enter into a plea agreement. If you are accused of fraud, it is in your best interest to consult an attorney as soon as possible. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is an experienced Michigan criminal defense attorney who can advise you of your rights and help you seek the best outcome available under the facts of your case. You can contact Mr. Bernstein through the online form or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a conference.

The Assault and Subsequent Trial

It is reported that the defendant and the victim were involved in a verbal altercation, after which the victim got into a vehicle and began to drive away. The defendant then began to shoot at the vehicle. He was charged with assault with intent to commit murder and other crimes. At his trial, the victim and his mother, who was at the scene of the incident, both testified that they did not know who shot at the vehicle.

Allegedly, the prosecution then presented evidence of earlier statements made by the victim and his mother in which they identified the defendant as the shooter, including a letter from the mother to the police. The defendant was ultimately convicted as charged. He then moved for a new trial, arguing in part that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The court denied his motion, and he appealed.

Evidence of Guilt in an Assault Case

The appellate court affirmed the trial court ruling. The court explained that a court might order a new trial on the groundsthat the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, only if the evidence was so heavily in favor of the opposite verdict that the verdict constitutes a miscarriage of justice. In other words, a verdict will generally only be vacated when the evidence does not reasonably support the verdict and it is clear it most likely arose out of some extraneous influence.

The court explained that, unless exceptional circumstances are present, the issue of a witness’s credibility is for the jury, and the trial court does not have the right to substitute its view of credibility for the jury’s. Further, conflicting testimony, even if it is impeached, is not an adequate basis for granting a new trial. In the subject case, the court found that the defendant failed to demonstrate the trial court ruling was erroneous. Thus, it was affirmed.

Speak to a Trusted Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer

The credibility of witnesses at a criminal trial is within the purview of the jury, and if the jury issues a guilty verdict after finding that a witness that is favorable to the defendant lacks credibility, it will likely be upheld. If you are charged with assault, you should speak to an attorney to determine what evidence the prosecution may introduce against you. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a trusted Michigan criminal defense attorney who can develop a strategy designed to provide you with a strong chance of a favorable result. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

Procedural History of the Case

Allegedly, the defendant was charged with assault with intent to do great bodily harm. Prior to trial, he filed a motion asking the court to instruct the jury on the crime of assault and battery on the grounds that it was a lesser-included offense of assault with intent to do great bodily harm. He further asserted that a rational view of the evidence supported the instruction.

It is reported that during the oral argument the court held on the motion, the prosecution conceded that assault and battery was a lesser included offense of assault with intent to do great bodily harm but objected to the instruction regardless on the basis that the intent element of the charged offense was not disputed, as the defense argued that no assault occurred. The court denied the defendant’s motion, and he was convicted as charged. The defendant appealed, but his conviction was upheld. He then appealed to the Supreme Court of Michigan.

Lesser Included Offense Jury Instructions in Assault Matters

The Supreme Court of Michigan reversed the trial court ruling. The court noted that it is well established that a party can assert grounds that differ from its original position in support of affirming a trial court ruling, in the subject case. As the prosecution admitted that assault and battery was a lesser included offense of assault with intent to do great bodily harm at the trial level, though, it waived the right to argue otherwise. As such, without ruling definitively on the issue, the court assumed that assault and battery was a lesser included offense of assault with intent to do great bodily harm.

Further, the court rejected the prosecution’s argument that the defense theory that the prosecution would not be able to prove an assault occurred meant that the assault element of the charged offense was not disputed, noting that a criminal defendant can assert inconsistent defenses. The court stated that if there was sufficient evidence to support a jury instruction, it should be provided, and remanded the matter for a new trial.

Speak to an Experienced Michigan Criminal Defense Lawyer

Assault crimes can carry significant penalties, but there are often numerous defenses people charged with assault can assert. If you are faced with charges that you committed an assault and battery offense, it is smart to speak to an attorney to determine what the prosecution must prove to establish your guilt. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is an experienced Michigan criminal defense attorney who can gather the evidence needed to provide you with a strong chance of obtaining a favorable outcome. You can reach Mr. Bernstein through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a meeting.

The Defendant’s Arrest and Trial

It is reported that the defendant was charged with numerous assault crimes following an altercation with his girlfriend and aunt. The defendant admitted that there was an argument but asserted that his aunt and girlfriend conspired to fabricate allegations against him. His aunt, however, stated that he attempted to stab her, gouged her face, and pointed a BB gun at her head, and his girlfriend testified that the defendant threw her to the ground and threatened her with a knife. A jury ultimately found the defendant guilty as charged. He appealed, arguing in part that the trial court violated his constitutional right to present a defense by excluding testimony regarding other acts.

The Right to Present a Defense

Upon reviewing the evidence, the appellate court denied the defendant’s appeal. The court explained that in order to preserve the issue of whether a trial court’s evidentiary ruling denied a defendant the right to offer a defense, the defendant has to raise the issue before the trial court. In the subject case, the defendant failed to argue at trial that the testimony in question was admissible under the Michigan Rules of Evidence or that the failure to admit such testimony denied him of the right to set forth a defense.

As such, the appellate court reviewed the matter to determine whether there was a plain error that impacted the defendant’s rights. The court explained that to show a plain error that warrants reversal, a defendant must prove that an obvious error occurred and that it affected substantial rights, which generally requires proof that the mistake altered the trial court proceedings. Even if a defendant meets these requirements, reversal is only required where the mistake resulted in the conviction of an innocent defendant. In the subject case, the appellate court found that the defendant failed to demonstrate reversal was warranted. Thus, his conviction was affirmed.

Meet with a Seasoned Criminal Defense Lawyer in Michigan

An assault conviction can substantially impair a person’s rights, but there are often numerous defenses a person accused of assault can set forth to avoid a guilty verdict. If you are charged with assault, it is in your best interest to speak to an attorney about your options. Sam Bernstein of ArborYpsi Law is a seasoned Michigan criminal defense attorney with the skills and experience needed to help you seek a just outcome, and if you hire him, he will advocate aggressively on your behalf. You can reach him through the form online or by calling (734) 883-9584 to set up a conference.