People of Michigan v. Norman Brown
330761
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 11, 2017Background
- On Jan 23, 2015, defendant Norman Brown and his brother Desmond walked onto the victim’s property after an earlier sideswipe incident involving the victim’s burgundy Equinox.
- Desmond knocked the victim’s nine-year-old son to the ground; the victim’s dog attacked Desmond and Desmond fired at the dog.
- The victim backed his vehicle toward the gate to reach his son; defendant was struck by the vehicle and then opened fire, wounding the victim in the shoulder, lip, and fingertips.
- Defendant was tried by jury and convicted of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder (AWIGBH), carrying a dangerous weapon with unlawful intent (MCL 750.226), and felony-firearm (MCL 750.227b).
- At trial parties assumed defendant held a concealed pistol license (CPL/CWP); counsel failed to place a stipulation on the record.
- Defendant appealed, challenging sufficiency of evidence on the carrying-with-unlawful-intent count, seeking resentencing on AWIGBH if that count failed, and asserting ineffective assistance for failing to put the CPL stipulation on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for carrying a dangerous weapon with unlawful intent (MCL 750.226) | The evidence (threatening exchange: “Are you sure that’s him?” / “yeah, I’m sure.”, defendant possessed a gun when approaching the property, and then shot) supports intent to unlawfully use the weapon. | No proof defendant had unlawful intent when he left to approach the victim’s property with the gun; mere possession isn’t enough. | Affirmed — viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, jury could infer unlawful intent at departure. |
| Whether vacating the carrying-with-unlawful-intent conviction requires resentencing on AWIGBH | If carrying conviction is valid, sentencing calculations that relied on it remain correct. | If carrying conviction were vacated, sentencing range for AWIGBH would be incorrect and resentencing required. | Rejected — carrying conviction sustained, so no resentencing required. |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to place CPL stipulation on the record | N/A (prosecutor/plaintiff conceded CPL fact at trial; parties treated it as true). | Trial counsel erred by not placing the CPL stipulation on the record, warranting relief. | No ineffective assistance — error was on the record but not prejudicial; outcome would not likely differ. |
| Jury instructions/stipulation effect on verdict | Stipulated facts may be regarded as true but are not binding on jurors; parties’ admissions made the CPL fact undisputed. | Same as plaintiff (defense argued prejudice). | No prejudice shown; jury heard and both sides assumed CPL was true, so counsel’s omission did not change outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McGhee, 268 Mich. App. 600 (discusses de novo review and sufficiency standard)
- People v. Bailey, 310 Mich. App. 703 (circumstantial evidence and inferences can prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Nowack, 462 Mich. 392 (reviewing credibility and inferences; standard for appellate deference)
- People v. Kanaan, 278 Mich. App. 594 (trial court’s role in weighing evidence and credibility)
- People v. Mitchell, 301 Mich. App. 282 (elements of carrying a weapon with unlawful intent: departing while equipped and having unlawful intent at departure)
- People v. Harrington, 194 Mich. App. 424 (defines elements of MCL 750.226)
- People v. Johnson, 315 Mich. App. 163 (standards for reviewing unpreserved ineffective-assistance claims)
- People v. Cooper, 309 Mich. App. 74 (prejudice prong: reasonable probability of a different outcome)