People of Michigan v. Engjull Thaqi
349921
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 22, 2021Background
- Defendant Engjull Thaqi, manager at a restaurant, pointed a revolver and fired multiple shots toward customer Eugene Lyons in a parking-lot confrontation; Lyons suffered a gunshot wound to his left leg but survived.
- Surveillance video showed Thaqi fire immediately upon seeing Lyons and fire additional shots while approaching; one shot was at very close range.
- Lyons had picked up a brick and intended to throw it through the restaurant window; Thaqi retrieved the brick and subdued Lyons after shooting him.
- At trial Thaqi testified he acted in self-defense and to protect customers; the jury convicted him of AWIGBH, felonious assault, carrying a dangerous weapon with unlawful intent, felon-in-possession, and four felony-firearm counts.
- Thaqi appealed, raising challenges to the denial of a directed verdict/sufficiency as to AWIGBH (self-defense), prosecutor questioning about his silence, the trial court’s refusal to ask jurors about gun ownership during voir dire, and an additional jury instruction defining “imminent.”
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Thaqi’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency / directed verdict on AWIGBH and self-defense | Evidence (video, multiple shots toward victim) established intent to cause great bodily harm; prosecution disproved self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. | Self-defense justified use of deadly force; prosecution failed to rebut postproduction of self-defense evidence. | Conviction affirmed; evidence sufficient and jury reasonably rejected self-defense. |
| Fifth Amendment — prosecutor questioning about defendant’s silence | Questions did not refer to a constitutionally protected, post-Miranda invocation of silence; record lacks evidence Miranda warnings were given or that Thaqi invoked silence. | Prosecutor improperly used Thaqi’s postarrest silence to impeach, violating Fifth Amendment. | No constitutional violation shown; prosecutor’s questions were not proven to target protected silence. |
| Voir dire — refusal to ask jurors about gun ownership | Jurors’ views on gun ownership were irrelevant because defendant, as a felon, could not lawfully possess a firearm. | Question about attitudes toward gun ownership was necessary to uncover bias given gun-related charges. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; question would unduly focus on irrelevant issue. |
| Jury instruction — court defined “imminent” using Black’s Law Dictionary | The provided definition comported sufficiently with MCL 780.972(1) and clarified juror confusion; any imperfection was harmless given the evidence. | Court erred by using a legal dictionary definition rather than a lay definition and thereby confused the jury. | No reversible error; instruction fairly presented legal standard and did not prejudice defendant. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Brown, 267 Mich App 141 (elements of AWIGBH)
- People v Russell, 297 Mich App 707 (intent to inflict great bodily harm may be inferred from use of a dangerous weapon)
- People v Stevens, 306 Mich App 620 (defendant’s actions and weapon use support inference of intent)
- People v Dupree, 486 Mich 693 (once defendant produces some evidence of self-defense, prosecution must disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Doyle v Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (prosecutor may not use postarrest, post-Miranda silence to impeach or as substantive evidence)
- People v Solmonson, 261 Mich App 657 (silence is constitutionally problematic only if it is shown to be post-Miranda or an invocation of the right to remain silent)
- People v Tyburski, 445 Mich 606 (scope of voir dire is within court’s discretion; no absolute right to have all counsel questions asked)
- People v Milton, 257 Mich App 467 (imperfect jury instructions are not reversible if they fairly present the issues)
- People v Lyles, 501 Mich 107 (preserved instructional errors reviewed for harmless error)