People of Michigan v. Charles Jacob Simkins
329561
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 21, 2017Background
- Defendant Charles Simkins was arrested after Edwin Criswell was shot and later died; defendant called 911, identified himself as the shooter, and had Criswell’s blood on his clothing; shell casings matched defendant’s 9mm Glock.
- Neighbors heard a loud argument and gunshots; no witness actually saw the shooting.
- Defendant did not testify; recorded 911 calls and police transport video (in which defendant asserted self-defense) were played for the jury.
- At trial the prosecution argued defendant was the aggressor; the defense argued self-defense and pointed to investigative deficiencies.
- Jury convicted defendant of voluntary manslaughter and felony-firearm; trial court sentenced him to 48 months–15 years for manslaughter and two years for felony-firearm.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed convictions but found OV 5 was mis-scored (15 points assessed for serious psychological injury to a “victim’s family”) and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutor’s rebuttal comment violated Fifth Amendment by commenting on defendant’s failure to testify | Comment was proper response to defense theory and did not impinge defendant’s right not to testify | Comment shifted burden and improperly referenced defendant’s silence | No plain error; comment referred to deceased victim and defendant’s own statements; not outcome determinative |
| Exclusion of PTSD expert infringed right to present a defense | N/A (prosecution opposed as irrelevant) | PTSD expert evidence was relevant to reasonableness of defendant’s fear and should have been admitted | No abuse of discretion; expert testimony would not have helped resolve which factual version was true and thus was not relevant |
| Prosecutor/police failure to test all physical evidence denied due process | N/A | Failure to test impaired ability to present exculpatory evidence | No due-process violation absent suppression, bad faith, or obligation to develop evidence; defendant could request testing himself |
| Scoring OV 5 (15 points) and Lockridge challenge to judicial fact-finding in scoring OVs | OV 5 properly scored based on victim-family testimony; post-Lockridge guidelines are advisory so judicial fact-finding permissible | OV 5 improperly assessed because fiancée is not a "family" member; Lockridge error preserved | Court found 15 points under OV 5 was clear error (fiancée not family under statute); Lockridge claim fails because sentencing judge treated guidelines as advisory; remand for resentencing due to altered guideline range |
Key Cases Cited
- Lockridge v. Michigan, 498 Mich 358 (guidelines advisory; remedy for mandatory judicial fact-finding)
- Orlewicz v. Michigan, 293 Mich App 96 (psychiatric testimony irrelevant where self-defense turns solely on competing versions of events)
- Griffin v. California, 380 US 609 (prosecutorial comment on defendant’s silence forbidden)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Hardy v. Michigan, 494 Mich 430 (OV factual findings reviewed for clear error; undefined statutory terms take ordinary meaning)
- Francisco v. Michigan, 474 Mich 82 (accurate scoring of guidelines required; resentencing if scoring error affects range)
- Anstey v. Michigan, 476 Mich 436 (distinction between failing to disclose developed evidence and failing to develop evidence)