Preview:

Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Opinion
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v WAYNE L. YOUNG, Defendant-Appellant. _______________________________ BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH CORRIGAN, J.

Chief Justice:

Justices:

Clifford W. Taylor

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman

FILED MARCH 29, 2005

No. 124811

In People v McCoy, 392 Mich 231; 220 NW2d 456 (1974), this Court invented a new rule regarding cautionary

instructions on accomplice testimony. that the trial court's failure to

That rule provided give a cautionary

instruction upon a defense request requires reversal of a conviction. absence of Moreover, reversal may be required even in the a defense request if the issue of guilt is

"closely drawn."

We reject the McCoy rule because it has Indeed, it contravenes long-

no basis in Michigan law.

standing authorities according discretion to trial courts

in deciding whether to provide a cautionary instruction on accomplice inconsistent testimony. with MCL Moreover, 768.29, the McCoy rule that is the

which

provides

failure to instruct on a point of law is not a ground for setting aside a verdict unless the instruction is requested by the accused, and MCR 2.516(C), which states that a party may assign as error the failure to give an instruction only if the party objects on the record before the jury retires to consider the verdict. We further clarify that an unpreserved claim of

failure to give a cautionary accomplice instruction may be reviewed only in the same manner as other unpreserved

arguments on appeal.

That is, appellate review is confined

to the plain-error test set forth in People v Grant, 445 Mich 535; 520 NW2d 123 (1994), and People v Carines, 460 Mich 750; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). We therefore affirm the

judgment of the Court of Appeals, because it reached the correct result in affirming defendant's convictions and

sentences. I. UNDERLYING FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Defendant shot and killed two people in an executionstyle slaying while robbing a drug house in Detroit. other evidence of guilt, the prosecution Among

presented

2


testimony from two witnesses whom defendant now claims were his accomplices, Michael Martin and Eugene Lawrence. Martin testified that defendant came to his house and asked him for a gun to rob someone. Martin had no gun.

Defendant then spoke on the telephone to Martin=s brotherin-law, Lawrence. Martin did not hear their conversation. After they

Martin then drove defendant to Lawrence=s house.

arrived, defendant and Lawrence spoke in a back room away from Martin, who again could not hear their conversation. Lawrence defendant testified him for that a during gun this conversation, some men had

asked

because

threatened him.

Defendant did not mention to Lawrence any Lawrence did furnish a gun to defendant then drove back to

plan to rob a drug house. defendant. Martin's home. Martin and

Martin went inside his home while defendant

walked off in the direction of a nearby drug house. Defendant later telephoned Martin, stating that he was planning to rob a drug house. Martin hung up. Later that

day, defendant visited Martin's home and admitted that he had shot the two victims in the head. left, Martin contacted Lawrence. went to defendant=s home. After defendant

Martin and Lawrence then

Defendant told them that he was

angry because he had killed the victims for only six rocks of crack cocaine. Defendant called an unknown person and

3


directed Defendant

him

to

tell

Martin

where Martin

to and

find

the

gun. to a

eventually

directed

Lawrence

field near Martin's home where Martin found the gun. The police questioned Martin twice. interview, he disclosed what had happened. retrieved the murder weapon. Martin and During the second The police then Lawrence were

never charged with a crime in connection with the murders. In addition to the testimony of Martin and Lawrence, the prosecution presented other evidence of defendant's

guilt.

One witness testified that defendant had also asked Another witness, Ronald Mathis, had seen the drug house just before the murders

him for a gun. defendant occurred. gun. in

At that time, defendant offered to sell Mathis a then left the premises. Upon his return

Mathis

approximately fifteen minutes later, Mathis discovered the victims' bodies and noted that defendant was gone.

Finally, a cigarette butt recovered at the murder scene contained deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) material that matched defendant=s DNA. Defendant was charged with several offenses, including first-degree defendant of murder, two MCL 750.316. of The jury convicted MCL

counts

second-degree

murder,

750.317; one count of assault with intent to commit armed robbery, MCL 750.89; one count of possession of a firearm

4


during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b; and one count of possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a felony, MCL 750.224f. terms for of the Defendant forty-five second-degree imprisonment was to sentenced seventy to

concurrent imprisonment forty to

years'

murder for

convictions, the assault

sixty

years'

conviction, and two to five years' imprisonment for the felon in possession of a firearm conviction. Those

sentences are to be served consecutively to the two-year term of imprisonment for the felony-firearm conviction. The Court of Appeals affirmed defendant's convictions.1 It rejected defendant=s contention that the trial court had erred under McCoy in failing to sua sponte provide a

cautionary instruction on accomplice testimony, concluding that: (1) this case did not present a closely drawn

credibility contest, and (2) it was not clear that Martin and Lawrence were accomplices. We appeal. granted defendant's application for leave to

470 Mich 869 (2004), mod

471 Mich 862 (2004).

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW Whether the McCoy rule has a basis in Michigan law and whether it is consistent with MCL 768.29 and MCR 2.516(C)

Unpublished opinion per curiam, issued September 25, 2003 (Docket No. 240832). 5


1

are questions of law that we review de novo. Patel, 471 Mich 158, 162; 684 NW2d 346 (2004).

Jenkins v Moreover,

as discussed later in this opinion, the decision whether to give a cautionary accomplice instruction falls within the trial court's sound discretion. MCL 768.29; People v

Dumas, 161 Mich 45, 48-49; 125 NW 766 (1910); People v Wallin, 55 Mich 497, 505; 22 NW 15 (1885). We therefore Finally,

review that decision for an abuse of discretion.

where, as here, the defendant failed to preserve his claim, our review is confined to the plain-error framework set forth in Grant and Carines. III. ANALYSIS A. Legal Background In McCoy, this Court discussed dangers that inhere in accomplice testimony, including "'the effect of fear, McCoy,

threats, hostility, motives, or hope of leniency.'"

supra at 236, quoting 30 Am Jur 2d, Evidence,

Download PEOPLE OF MI V WAYNE L YOUNG.pdf

Michigan Law