Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v CARLOS EMANUEL COLLINS, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED August 21, 2008

No. 277098 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 06-008379-01

Before: Murray, P.J., and Whitbeck and Talbot, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant Carlos Collins appeals as of right his jury trial convictions for first-degree felony murder,1 second-degree murder,2 armed robbery,3 felon in possession of a firearm,4 and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm).5 The trial court sentenced Collins, as a fourth habitual offender,6 to mandatory life imprisonment for the firstdegree felony murder conviction, which merged with Collins's second-degree murder conviction, 30 to 50 years' imprisonment for the armed robbery conviction, two to five years' imprisonment for the felon in possession of a firearm conviction, and ten years' imprisonment for the felony-firearm conviction. We affirm. I. Basic Facts And Procedural History Collins's convictions arise from events that transpired in Lula Vaughn's residence on June 17, 2006,7 that resulted in the fatal shooting death of Claude "Main" Marshall, Jr. Vaughn,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

MCL 750.316(1)(b). MCL 750.317. MCL 750.529. MCL 750.224f. MCL 750.227b. MCL 769.12.

Vaughn, the sole witness to the events leading to Marshall's death, did not testify with certainty regarding whether the events took place on Friday, June 16, 2006, or Saturday, June 17, 2006.
(continued...)

-1-


Marshall, and Collins sat together at Vaughn's kitchen table for about 30 minutes that day; each drank an eight-ounce glass of beer and each smoked one rock of crack cocaine, which Marshall had brought. Vaughn had known Marshall for about 17 years and Collins for about two years at the time of the incident, and had been romantically involved with Collins sometime in the past for about two or three months. After Vaughn, Marshall, and Collins smoked the crack cocaine, Marshall and Collins left Vaughn's apartment for about 20 minutes, during which time they obtained additional crack cocaine and heroin. Marshall and Collins rejoined Vaughn at her kitchen table, and Vaughn inhaled the heroin that Collins offered to her. Marshall declined to try the heroin, and Collins refused to take the heroin. Vaughn testified that she felt the effects of the heroin immediately, but supposed that something was wrong with the heroin because her head fell down upon her kitchen table. According to Vaughn, she could still see at that point; however, "it seemed like things were going, started to go in slow motion to me." Vaughn stated that she was able to hear, but she described the sounds as "blurred," and "it seemed like it was far away, you know, like an echo." While Vaughn's head was resting on the table, Vaughn testified that she heard Collins tell Marshall to stand up, empty his pockets, and place the items on the table. Vaughn heard the sound of change and keys hitting the table. At that point, Vaughn raised her head, and asked Collins why he was searching Marshall. Collins did not respond to Vaughn's question. Vaughn testified that while she was attempting to push herself away from the table in order to see what was happening, Marshall was sitting at the table, and repeatedly asked, "what's up?" In response, Collins told Marshall to leave Vaughn's apartment. Vaughn then heard, but did not see, what she believed was a pistol being cocked. At that point, Vaughn was attempting to get up, and was pushing herself back from her kitchen table. Also at this point, Marshall and Collins had left the table, and were engaged in a physical altercation behind Vaughn. Vaughn asked Collins why he told Marshall to leave, but Collins did not respond. According to Vaughn, she pushed herself back from the table, and then she heard a gunshot. Vaughn testified that although she continued to feel the effects of the heroin, and thus was unsure of the timing, she believed that she heard the gunshot soon after the altercation between Marshall and Collins began. After she heard the gunshot, Vaughn once again attempted to push herself away from the table, but instead, fell onto the kitchen floor, and lost consciousness. Vaughn testified that she did not know how long she remained on the floor, or remained unconscious. However, when she regained consciousness, Vaughn noticed that Collins had
(...continued)

While the events relevant to this case were taking place, Vaughn was admittedly under the influence of alcohol, crack cocaine, heroin, and subsequently, a prescription sleep aid. As explained in more detail below, Vaughn reported Marshall's death to the police on Sunday, June 18, 2006, and stated to the police that Marshal had been dead for two days. However, before trial, the trial court granted defendant's motion for a bill of particulars, and ruled that the bill of particulars would reflect that the approximate time of death was 8:00 p.m., on Saturday, June 17, 2006. Accordingly, to avoid confusion, we will hereinafter refer to the date of the incident as Saturday, June 17, 2006.

-2-


gone, and Marshall was lying on the floor near Vaughn's front door. Vaughn also noticed a blood stain on the wall. The objects Vaughn had previously heard falling on her kitchen table were gone. Although Vaughn was not certain that Marshall was dead at that point, she eventually covered Marshall with a sheet. However, Vaughn decided not to cover Marshall's face with the sheet in case he was still alive. Although Vaughn testified that she continued to feel the effects of the crack cocaine and heroin, she took three or four doctor-prescribed sleeping pills and fell asleep on her couch. Vaughn alleged that she awoke sometime during the night when her telephone rang. Vaughn answered the telephone and spoke to her sister, Norma. Norma asked Vaughn what was wrong, and Vaughn responded that nothing was wrong, although Vaughn testified that Marshall's body was lying on her floor at that time. Sometime later, Vaughn's sister Ruby telephoned Vaughn. Vaughn did not know the interval of time between the telephone call from Norma and the telephone call from Ruby because, at that point, Vaughn continued to have difficulty estimating periods of time. Ruby also asked Vaughn what was wrong. Vaughn denied that anything was wrong. However, Ruby insisted that something was wrong, and Vaughn's nephew, who took the telephone from Ruby, demanded that Vaughn tell him what was wrong. Vaughn then told him that Marshall was lying on her floor and that he had possibly died. When Vaughn's nephew asked Vaughn how long Marshall had been lying on the floor, Vaughn responded that Marshall had been lying on her floor for two days. At trial, Vaughn testified that she did not actually know that Marshall had been lying on her floor for two days because it was still difficult for her to estimate time intervals. Sometime thereafter, Norma and Vaughn's nephew arrived at Vaughn's apartment door, but did not enter. Norma asked Vaughn if she had called the police. Vaughn responded that she had; but in fact, Vaughn had not called the police at that point. Between the time Norma and Vaughn's nephew left the apartment building and the time Vaughn telephoned the police, Vaughn had washed the bloodstain off of her apartment wall. Vaughn explained that she washed the blood from the wall "[b]ecause I didn't want no one to come in and see my house in a mess like that." When the police arrived at Vaughn's apartment, according to Vaughn, she was still feeling the effects of the drugs she had taken. Vaughn described her mood at the time as "terrorized." When the police asked how long Marshall had been dead, Vaughn told the police that Marshall had been lying on her floor for two days. Vaughn testified at trial that she waited to call the police because she "couldn't accept the fact that [Marshall] was dead." Further, Vaughn testified that she cleaned the blood from her wall because she was in shock. A police officer on the scene testified that Vaughn told her that she washed the blood off of her wall because Vaughn could not stand the sight of it. At trial, Vaughn acknowledged that she falsely told the police that she did not report the homicide sooner because Collins had threatened her. Vaughn testified that she became afraid because she realized that she was a witness to a homicide. According to Vaughn, she asked the police if one of the officers could stay with her because Collins told her that he would return and she was afraid, but the police officer told her that an officer could not stay.

-3-


The Detroit police officer dispatched to Vaughn's apartment on June 18, 2006, testified that, pursuant to his investigation, he did not find any firearm evidence. The officer noticed a very faint red smear on the north wall of Vaughn's apartment. Although the officer attempted to obtain fingerprints, he was unable to find any usable fingerprints. At trial, Assistant Wayne County Medical Examiner Leigh Hlavaty testified that she performed an autopsy on Marshall and determined that Marshall had been dead for one to three days. Hlavaty also observed that Marshall had sustained a contact gunshot wound to his left upper chest. A deformed, jacketed bullet was recovered from Marshall's body. Marshall's death was ruled a homicide on the basis of information from the police that Marshall did not pull the trigger of the gun that caused the contact gunshot wound. Hlavaty performed a toxicological analysis of Marshall's body and found the presence of alcohol and cocaine. Police officer David Pauch testified that he analyzed the bullet recovered from Marshall's body during the autopsy and identified it as a .40 or 10 mm-caliber bullet. Pauch testified that a .40 caliber cartridge is intended for use in semi-automatic pistols, as opposed to revolvers. Darryl Thomas, an inmate of the Wayne County Jail at the time of trial, testified that he met Collins in jail after Collins was arrested for the homicide. According to Thomas, Collins told him that Collins had visited his father and then decided to visit a woman who lived in the same apartment building. Thomas testified that Collins told him that the persons present in the apartment started to drink and smoke crack cocaine, and Collins decided to rob a man who was present. Collins stated that he told "the guy" not to move during the course of the robbery, and when "the guy" failed to comply with Collins's order, Collins shot him with either a .40 or .45 caliber pistol. Thomas recalled that Collins told him that, after he shot the victim, he searched the victim's pockets. When Thomas asked Collins how the woman reacted to the situation, Collins responded that the woman "just looked up and looked around." Thomas testified that Collins told him that he left the apartment after the robbery and shooting, shaved his beard, and was eventually arrested while visiting a patient at a hospital. At the close of the prosecution's case-in-chief, the parties stipulated to reduce the charge of first-degree premeditated murder to second-degree murder because there was no evidence that Collins's killing of Marshall was premeditated. Collins then brought a motion for a directed verdict on the remaining first-degree felony murder, second-degree murder, armed robbery, and firearms charges. Trial court ruled that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence with regard to the remaining charges for the case to be submitted to the jury, and therefore denied Collins's motion for a directed verdict. Following the denial of Collins's motion for a directed verdict, Collins declined to present any evidence. The jury found Collins guilty of the first-degree felony murder, second-degree murder, armed robbery, felon in possession of a firearm, and felonyfirearm charges. Collins now appeals. II. Motion For Directed Verdict A. Standard Of Review Collins argues that the trial court improperly denied his motion for a directed verdict, alleging that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to support each element of firstdegree felony murder and armed robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. We review de novo a trial -4-


court's decision on a motion for a directed verdict in order to ascertain whether the evidence presented by the prosecutor, when viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, could persuade a rational trier of fact that the elements of the crimes charged were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.8 B. Analysis Due process requires that the trial court direct a verdict of acquittal if there is insufficient evidence to support a conviction.9 The court must not weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of the witnesses, even if the testimony was inconsistent or vague.10 Questions regarding the credibility of witnesses are within the purview of the trier of fact.11 As Collins frames the issue with regard to his first-degree felony murder conviction, the question in this case is whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to persuade a rational trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt that Collins was the person who committed the homicide. According to Collins, the prosecution "failed to present any real evidence" that Collins shot and killed Marshall. Further, Collins asserts that the prosecution failed to present any evidence that Collins took any item from Marshall for the purposes of the enumerated felony element of the first-degree felony murder charge, here, armed robbery. In Michigan, the elements of first-degree felony murder are: "`(1) the killing of a human being, (2) with the intent to kill, to do great bodily harm, or to create a very high risk of death or great bodily harm with knowledge that death or great bodily harm was the probable result [i.e., malice], (3) while committing, attempting to commit, or assisting in the commission of any of the felonies specifically enumerated in [MCL 750.316(1)(b)].'"12 "The facts and circumstances of the killing may give rise to an inference of malice."13 "Malice may also be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon."14 "The elements of armed robbery are: (1) an assault; (2) a felonious taking of property from the victim's presence or person; and (3) while the defendant is armed

8

People v Gillis, 474 Mich 105, 113; 712 NW2d 419 (2006); People v Mayhew, 236 Mich App 112, 124; 600 NW2d 370 (1999). MCR 6.419(A); People v Lemmon, 456 Mich 625, 633-634; 576 NW2d 129 (1998). People v Mehall, 454 Mich 1, 6; 557 NW2d 110 (1997); People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 514515; 489 NW2d 748 (1992).

9

10

People v Pe

Download PEOPLE OF MI V CARLOS EMANUEL COLLINS.pdf

Michigan Law