People of Michigan v. Damien Michael Smith
330125
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 7, 2017Background
- Defendant Damien Smith fired multiple rounds at an occupied residence on two occasions after becoming upset that his ex-girlfriend was at the home; witnesses saw a vehicle matching the defendant’s mother's Oldsmobile and shells were later recovered from that car and from a fire pit.
- Defendant repeatedly called the victim, John Chascsa, warning he was coming and telling the ex-girlfriend to “watch this” before the second shooting.
- Police arrested defendant; over recorded interviews he admitted shooting the house (reporting 14–16 shots), said he intended to kill Chascsa, and described using a shotgun and hiding shell casings.
- A jury convicted Smith of assault with intent to murder; multiple firearms and related offenses; and six felony-firearm counts. The trial court imposed concurrent prison terms with a consecutive two-year felony-firearm term.
- On appeal Smith challenged (1) the voluntariness of his confessions (motion to suppress denied), (2) sufficiency of the evidence identifying him as the shooter, and (3) sufficiency of evidence of intent to kill. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Voluntariness of confession | Police properly obtained voluntary, Miranda-waived statements; totality shows no coercion | Statement involuntary due to intoxication, pressure about his incarcerated mother, and implied promises/threats | Affirmed: waiver and voluntariness were supported by the record; no coercive police misconduct or promises found |
| Sufficiency—identity | Confessions plus circumstantial evidence (calls, witness ID, vehicle match, recovered shells/weapon) identify Smith as shooter | Insufficient eyewitness ID and circumstantial link to prove he was the shooter beyond reasonable doubt | Affirmed: admissions plus physical and testimonial circumstantial evidence sufficient for a rational jury to find identity beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Sufficiency—intent to kill | Confessions expressing desire to kill, statements about targeting Chascsa, and use of a deadly weapon support specific intent | Argued shots from street with shotgun pellets at a building show lack of intent to kill | Affirmed: defendant’s express admissions and the use of potentially lethal buckshot allowed a reasonable jury to infer intent to kill |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial statements admissible only after voluntary, knowing, intelligent waiver of Fifth Amendment rights)
- Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986) (coercive police activity is required to render a confession involuntary under Due Process Clause)
- Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984) (Miranda warnings generally satisfy concerns about voluntariness absent other coercion)
- People v. Daoud, 462 Mich. 621 (2000) (burden to prove voluntariness by preponderance; standards for waiver)
- People v. Cipriano, 431 Mich. 315 (1988) (non‑exhaustive list of factors for assessing voluntariness of a confession)
- People v. Kanaan, 278 Mich. App. 594 (2008) (state of mind and intent may be proved by minimal circumstantial evidence and inferences)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (1999) (use of a deadly weapon may support inference of intent)
- People v. Dumas, 454 Mich. 390 (1997) (deadly weapon use probative of intent)
- People v. Taylor, 422 Mich. 554 (1985) (assault with intent to murder requires actual intent to kill)