People of Michigan v. Kyle Jonathon Whyde
334120
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 28, 2017Background
- Defendant Kyle Jonathon Whyde was tried in a bench trial and convicted of assault with intent to commit murder (AWIM) and domestic violence; sentenced to 6–10 years for AWIM and time served for domestic violence.
- The trial court acquitted defendant of assault by strangulation, explaining it treated that offense as a lesser included offense of AWIM.
- Defendant did not object to the verdict at trial and raised the inconsistency argument for the first time on appeal.
- On appeal, defendant argued the acquittal on strangulation was inconsistent with the AWIM conviction because strangulation is a lesser included offense of AWIM.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the unpreserved issue for plain error and concluded the trial court erred in treating assault by strangulation as a lesser included offense of AWIM, but the acquittal stands due to double jeopardy protections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether assault by strangulation is a lesser included offense of AWIM | Prosecution argued the court's verdict was proper and supported by facts | Defendant argued assault by strangulation is a necessary lesser included offense of AWIM, making the verdict inconsistent | Assault by strangulation is not a lesser included offense of AWIM; the acquittal remains unreviewable on appeal due to double jeopardy |
| Whether an inconsistent verdict occurred requiring reversal | Prosecution: no reversible error; court’s factual findings support convictions | Defendant: acquittal on strangulation inconsistent with AWIM conviction | No reversible error; acquittal permissible and protected by double jeopardy |
| Standard of review for unpreserved claim | Prosecution: plain-error review applies | Defendant: plain-error review must show affected substantial rights | Court applied plain-error review and found no relief available despite trial court’s legal error |
| Whether legislative intent permits multiple convictions from same conduct | Prosecution: statutes allow distinct charges | Defendant: argued offenses overlap as lesser included | Legislature intended distinct punishable offenses; multiple convictions permissible under statute |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Pipes, 475 Mich. 267 (preservation requirement for appellate review)
- People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain-error standard for unpreserved claims)
- People v Ellis, 468 Mich. 25 (bench trials cannot enter inconsistent verdicts; acquittal protected by double jeopardy)
- People v Brown, 267 Mich. App. 141 (discussion of AWIGBH as a lesser included offense to AWIM)
- People v Ream, 481 Mich. 223 (elements test for same-offense analysis)
- People v Martin, 271 Mich. App. 280 (legislative intent governs lesser-included-offense instructions)