People of Michigan v. Frederick Bryant Biles, 329916

On Nov. 18, 2014, Frederick Biles shot Andrew Baker twice; Baker died. Biles and his son Brandon went to Biles’s daughter Bryanna’s apartment after learning Baker was arguing with her; Brandon began fighting Baker.
Biles testified he carried a gun (CPL) and fired a first shot as a warning because Baker threatened to take his weapon and approached with an unidentified object; the second shot occurred during a struggle with Bryanna over the gun.
Biles surrendered the following day in Indiana after being stopped by police. He was charged with second-degree murder, assault with intent to murder, and felony-firearm; convicted by a jury, and appealed.
Biles claimed the trial judge’s questioning of witnesses (including Biles) displayed partiality and disbelief, improperly emphasizing damaging testimony and undermining his accident/self-defense theory.
The trial court gave a general curative instruction that its questions were not evidence; the Court of Appeals held that the questioning, in context, created the appearance of judicial advocacy and deprived Biles of a fair trial.
The court reversed and remanded for a new trial; because judicial-bias error was dispositive, other claims were discussed but not resolved by reversal (including instructional errors regarding involuntary manslaughter and a missing-witness instruction).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial judge’s questioning pierced veil of impartiality	Judge’s questions were proper clarification and harmless; curative instruction sufficed	Judge’s questioning repeatedly implied disbelief and emphasized damaging testimony, creating appearance of partiality	Reversed: judge’s conduct likely influenced jury; structural error requires new trial
Whether a missing-witness instruction (M Crim JI 5.12) was required for Brandon’s absence	No instruction necessary because prosecution had produced Brandon at first trial	Prosecution failed to exercise due diligence to produce Brandon at second trial; jury may infer testimony would be unfavorable	Trial court abused discretion in refusing the instruction; prosecutor’s prior production at earlier trial does not excuse lack of due diligence
Whether involuntary manslaughter instruction was required	Not required because evidence supported malice for murder	Supported by Biles’s testimony of lack of intent; rational view supported involuntary manslaughter	Trial court erred by refusing the involuntary manslaughter instruction; should have been given if rationally supported
Whether voluntary manslaughter instruction given was accurate	Instruction was correct as read	Instruction was flawed (elements misstated/repeated second-degree murder elements)	Instruction was inaccurate due to oversight; should be corrected if given at retrial

People v. Stevens, 498 Mich 162 (Michigan Supreme Court) (standards for reviewing judicial misconduct and judicial questioning)
People v. Gillis, 474 Mich 105 (Michigan Supreme Court) (involuntary manslaughter as lesser included offense; malice distinction)
People v. Datema, 448 Mich 585 (Michigan Supreme Court) (definition of involuntary manslaughter)
People v. Mendoza, 468 Mich 527 (Michigan Supreme Court) (definition of malice referenced)
People v. Holtschlag, 471 Mich 1 (Michigan Supreme Court) (malice/gross negligence distinction)
People v. Eccles, 260 Mich App 379 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (prosecutor’s duty/due diligence for missing-witness instruction)
People v. Sabin (On Second Remand), 242 Mich App 656 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (procedural preservation of jury-instruction requests)
People v. Dobek, 274 Mich App 58 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (waiver vs. forfeiture of appellate review)
People v. Armstrong, 305 Mich App 230 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (review of jury instructions as a whole)
People v. Jackson (On Reconsideration), 313 Mich App 409 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (plain-error review for unpreserved instructional issues)