People of Michigan v. Adrian Buish
331153
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- Defendant Adrian Buish and victim Joseph Lanoue were inmates in adjacent cells at Saginaw Correctional Facility; an altercation on March 14, 2015 left Lanoue with significant head injuries.
- Lanoue testified Buish hit him in the back of the head with something and that he suffered bleeding, vomiting, a seizure, and loss of consciousness; medical testimony corroborated head trauma and an ER referral.
- Buish testified the encounter was a mutual fight provoked by Lanoue’s taunts and denied bringing any weapon or intending great bodily harm.
- Prosecutor moved during trial (before witnesses called) to amend the information from felonious assault to assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder; the court allowed the amendment over Buish’s objection.
- A jury convicted Buish of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder and acquitted him of prisoner-in-possession-of-a-weapon; Buish was sentenced as a fourth habitual offender.
- On appeal Buish challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence as to intent, (2) the trial court’s allowance of the late amendment to the information, and (3) ineffective assistance for failing to request a mutual-fight jury instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove intent to cause great bodily harm | Evidence of multiple blows, grabbing, kicking, head trauma, and serious injuries permits an inference of intent to cause great bodily harm | Evidence supported a mutual fight/ lack of specific intent to cause great bodily harm | Affirmed — viewed most favorably to prosecutor, jury could infer intent from the violence and injuries |
| Amendment of the information during trial under MCR 6.112(H) | Amendment was timely (before witnesses) and the facts/evidence at preliminary exam and discovery supported the added charge | Late amendment unfairly surprised and deprived him of the right to present a full defense | Affirmed — no unfair surprise or prejudice; defendant had notice before witnesses, access to records, declined continuance, and consented to proceed |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to request a mutual-fight instruction | N/A (prosecution opposed) | Counsel erred by not requesting a mutual-fight instruction, which could have supported defense theory and affected outcome | Affirmed — trial strategy to omit that instruction was reasonable and defendant failed to show prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gaines, 306 Mich. App. 289 (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- People v. Nowack, 462 Mich. 392 (circumstantial evidence and permissible inferences on intent)
- People v. Dillard, 303 Mich. App. 372 (use of physical violence permits inference of intent)
- People v. Pena, 224 Mich. App. 650 (beating injuries can support inference of intent to cause serious harm)
- People v. McGee, 258 Mich. App. 683 (when amendment to information causes unfair surprise/prejudice)
- Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain-error standard)
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (due process—meaningful opportunity to present a defense)
- Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (right to confront witnesses and to counsel)