Articles Posted in Assault

In many criminal trials, the prosecution relies on testimony from victims and eyewitnesses to prove its case against the defendant. As such, if a key witness for the state later recants their testimony, it may constitute grounds for reversing a defendant’s conviction. A change in an eyewitness account will not always result in a favorable outcome for a criminal defendant, though, as demonstrated in a recent Michigan case in which a jury convicted the defendant of assault with intent to murder. If you are accused of a crime, it is critical to retain the assistance of a skilled Michigan criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

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. Continue Reading ›

Criminal defendants rarely lack grounds to assert the insanity defense, but when they present compelling evidence demonstrating that the defense applies, they can often avoid a conviction. As such, if a defense attorney makes mistakes that prevent a defendant from offering a valid insanity defense, it may constitute grounds for reversing a conviction, as shown in a recent Michigan assault case. If you are accused of assault or another criminal offense, it is smart to retain a skilled Michigan criminal defense attorney to evaluate what defenses you may be able to assert.

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. Continue Reading ›

The Michigan Constitution and the United States Constitution afford criminal defendants many rights, including the right to counsel and the right to self-representation. While defendants are protected from harm caused by incompetent attorneys in that they can assert claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, if they choose to represent themselves, they waive the right to make such claims, as illustrated in a recent Michigan ruling issued in a murder case. If you are charged with a violent crime, such as murder, it is in your best interest to hire a capable Michigan criminal defense attorney to help you fight to protect your rights.

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. Continue Reading ›

In Michigan, criminal statutes are made up of elements. Thus, when the state charges a defendant with a crime, the prosecution must establish each element beyond a reasonable doubt in order to obtain a conviction. While in some cases, the meaning of an element of a crime is clear, in others, it is less certain. For example, assault crimes contain acts of violence, but there is debate as to whether certain behavior falls under the definition of such acts. This was illustrated in a recent Michigan assault case in which the court examined whether spitting is an act of violence, ultimately concluding that it is. If you are accused of assault, it is important to seek the assistance of a Michigan criminal defense attorney to help you formulate compelling defenses.

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. Continue Reading ›

One of the many rights the United States Constitution affords criminal defendants is the right to a trial before a jury of their peers. Parties do not have to exercise that right but can choose to be tried before a judge. The waiver of the right to a jury trial must be knowing and voluntary, however, otherwise, it may be invalid. In a recent Michigan ruling issued in an assault case, the court discussed what constitutes a voluntary waiver of the right to a jury trial. If you are charged with assault or any other crime, it is smart to talk to a Michigan criminal defense attorney about your rights.

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. Continue Reading ›

When a person is charged of violating a Michigan criminal statute, the prosecution must prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to obtain a conviction. If the evidence the state offers at trial is insufficient to sustain a conviction, but a defendant is nonetheless found guilty, they may have grounds for filing an appeal. Recently, a Michigan court discussed what evidence is sufficient to convict a defendant for assault in a case in which the defendant’s appeal was ultimately denied. If you are accused of an assault offense, it is in your best interest to meet with a Michigan criminal defense attorney to assess what evidence may be used against you.

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. Continue Reading ›

Under Michigan law, there are some acts that, while they form the basis of criminal charges, are justified in certain situations. For example, if a person uses force against another person, they may be charged with an assault crime, but if they took such action to protect themselves or someone else, the charges against them might be dismissed. In a recent ruling, a Michigan court discussed what evidence a criminal defendant must produce to establish the use of force was appropriate. If you are charged with assault or any other crime, it is in your best interest to confer with a skilled Michigan criminal defense attorney.

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. Continue Reading ›

Typically, in Michigan criminal trials, the prosecution is not permitted to introduce evidence that the defendant previously engaged in wrongful behavior that is similar to the criminal offense they are accused of committing. There are some exceptions, though, as demonstrated in a recent Michigan matter in which the defendant challenged his conviction for sexual assault after the prosecution introduced evidence of a prior similar incident. If you are charged with assault or any other crime, it is prudent to meet with a knowledgeable Michigan criminal defense attorney to determine what evidence the state may introduce against you.

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. Continue Reading ›

Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:

It is well established under Michigan law that people can be charged with more than one offense following a single criminal incident. They cannot be found guilty twice for the same crime, however, as such rulings violate double jeopardy. Further, they cannot be found guilty of multiple crimes if such convictions are contradictory. In other words, there are protected from inconsistent verdicts or those that cannot be rationally reconciled with the court’s factual findings. This was illustrated in a recent Michigan criminal matter, in which a court overturned a defendant’s felonious assault conviction on the grounds that it was inconsistent with his conviction for assault with murderous intent. If you are accused of assault, it is advisable to confer with a Michigan assault defense attorney regarding your potential defenses.

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. Continue Reading ›

In Michigan criminal matters, the prosecution bears the burden of proving each element of a charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If it cannot meet this burden, the evidence should be deemed insufficient to obtain or sustain a conviction. The standard of review the court employs when faced with challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence was the topic of a recent Michigan ruling in a case in which the defendant appealed his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. If you are charged with an assault crime, it is advisable to speak to a Michigan criminal defense attorney to determine your options for seeking a favorable outcome.

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. Continue Reading ›

Posted in:
Published on:
Updated:
Contact Information