People v Bailey
451 Mich. 657, 549 N.W.2d 325 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court is not required to instruct a jury on a lesser cognate offense of assault in a homicide case if the defendant's act is an uncontroverted proximate cause of the victim's death. To warrant such an instruction, there must be evidence upon which a jury could rationally conclude that a subsequent, independent intervening act was the sole cause of death.
Facts:
- Richard Bailey and the decedent, Charles Peoples, were residents of the same apartment building.
- On July 15, 1991, Bailey confronted Peoples about drinking on the front porch, which led to a verbal exchange.
- Shortly thereafter, Bailey observed Peoples in a heated argument with Bailey's brother.
- In response, Bailey retrieved a baseball bat from his brother's car, yelled at Peoples, and struck him first in the left knee and then again on his left side.
- Peoples entered the apartment building, managed to get to the third floor, and then collapsed in the hallway.
- A witness, Gerald Coutier, later observed Peoples' brother, William, kick the collapsed Peoples twice on the left side while telling him to get up.
- A medical examiner's report concluded that Peoples died from blunt force injuries, including fractures to his left ribs and a ruptured spleen.
Procedural Posture:
- Richard Bailey was charged with second-degree murder and tried before a jury in a Michigan state trial court.
- The trial court instructed the jury on second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter but refused Bailey's request for an instruction on assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Bailey guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
- Bailey, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Michigan Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals reversed Bailey's conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred in refusing the requested instruction.
- The prosecution, as appellant, then appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Michigan (the state's highest court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court err by refusing to instruct a jury on the cognate lesser included offense of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder when the defendant is charged with second-degree murder and the defendant's acts were an uncontroverted proximate cause of the victim's death?
Opinions:
Majority - Boyle, J.
No. The trial court did not err because an instruction on a lesser assaultive offense is inappropriate where the defendant's actions are an uncontroverted proximate cause of the victim's death. The crime of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder presupposes that the act did not cause the victim's death. Here, Bailey's act of striking Peoples with a bat was a substantial factor in his death, making it a proximate cause. The evidence of Peoples' brother kicking the victim was, at most, evidence of a potential second, contributory cause. For an intervening act to sever the defendant's criminal liability, it must be the sole cause of death. Since the defense presented no evidence that the kicks alone caused the death, there was no rational basis for a jury to find Bailey guilty of only assault while ignoring the resulting homicide. To give the instruction would be to invite pure speculation by the jury.
Dissenting - Cavanagh, J.
Yes. The trial court erred by refusing the instruction. The only relevant inquiry under established precedent is whether the evidence adduced at trial would have supported a conviction for the requested lesser offense. In this case, the evidence clearly supported the elements of assault with intent to do great bodily harm: Bailey admitted to the assault, and the jury could have inferred the requisite specific intent from his actions. The majority's focus on causation is irrelevant to the instructional issue and improperly usurps the jury's role as the sole finder of fact, as the jury is entitled to believe or disbelieve any evidence, including that related to the cause of death. By refusing the instruction, the trial court impermissibly took that determination away from the jury.
Dissenting - Levin, J.
Yes. The trial court erred. The majority improperly redefines the crime of assault with intent to do great bodily harm by adding a new element: that the victim must not have died as a result of the assault. The legislature established this offense as distinct from homicide, and it is within the jury's province to convict a defendant of this lesser crime even if a death occurred, should they not find the malice required for murder or the elements of manslaughter. Because sufficient evidence was introduced to show both an assault and the requisite intent, the instruction was required under this Court's long-standing precedent. The majority's decision is an unacknowledged departure from prior case law.
Analysis:
This decision significantly refines the doctrine of cognate lesser included offenses in Michigan homicide law. It narrows the circumstances under which a defendant can receive an instruction on a non-homicide assaultive offense when the victim has died. The ruling shifts the analysis from merely whether there is any evidence to support the lesser charge to whether there is a rational evidentiary basis to find that the defendant's actions did not cause the death. This holding limits the jury's 'mercy-dispensing' power by preventing instructions based on speculation about intervening causes, thereby strengthening the legal principle that a defendant is liable for the natural and probable consequences of their actions unless a subsequent act is the sole cause of harm.
Unlock the full brief for People v Bailey