People of Michigan v. Robert Maksymilian Solecki
331154
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 9, 2017Background
- Defendant was stopped by state trooper for driving an off-road vehicle on roadways, failing to stop at a stop sign, and having a suspended license.
- Trooper Rossler told Defendant he would be arrested and offered options for transporting Defendant’s two dogs and the ORV; Defendant refused and said he was going home.
- Defendant drove away from the stop, trooper followed for about a half-mile to Defendant’s residence; Defendant then went inside, sat in a lawn chair, and refused to cooperate.
- Officers physically removed and handcuffed Defendant and transported him to jail.
- Defendant was convicted by jury of resisting and obstructing a police officer (MCL 750.81d(1)), fourth-degree fleeing and eluding (MCL 257.602a(2)), and operating with a suspended license (second offense); sentenced to eight months on each conviction.
- On appeal Defendant challenged sufficiency and great-weight of the evidence as to fleeing and eluding, sought a mistrial for prosecutor remarks, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct (civic-duty/bosstering).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for 4th-degree fleeing and eluding | Evidence showed Defendant willfully failed to obey a police signal by leaving the scene and driving to his home after being warned; viewing facts favorably to prosecution, intent is established | Defendant argues lack of intent to permanently elude — he told trooper he was going home and invited trooper to meet him there, so did not intend to flee/elude | Affirmed: statute targets willful disobedience of lawful stop (act-focused); leaving after warning and driving away half-mile suffices to infer intent to flee/elude |
| Great-weight challenge to the fleeing conviction | Not directly argued by plaintiff on appeal | Defendant says verdict is against great weight because he did not intend to permanently evade arrest | No miscarriage of justice; unpreserved so reviewed for plain error; argument rejected because intent to flee is not limited to permanent evasion |
| Motion for mistrial based on prosecutor comments about missing medical evidence | Prosecutor argues lack of medical proof was relevant to credibility; court instructed jury that medical evidence was excluded and not hidden | Defendant asserts prosecutor improperly implied Defendant failed to produce medical evidence and thus prejudiced jury | Trial court did not abuse discretion: prosecutor’s remarks were improper but curative instruction cured prejudice; mistrial denied |
| Prosecutorial misconduct — civic duty / bolstering / expressing opinion | Prosecutor argued reasonable inferences from evidence and urged conviction based on record; said she rarely expresses such confidence | Defendant contends prosecutor appealed to jurors’ civic duty, bolstered office prestige, and expressed personal belief of guilt | Any improper civic-duty appeal or confidence statement was minimal and cured by jury instructions; no reversible misconduct found |
Key Cases Cited
- Harverson v. People, 291 Mich. App. 171 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (standard of review for sufficiency: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)
- Cline v. People, 276 Mich. App. 634 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007) (review of sufficiency and reasonable-inference framework)
- Grayer v. People, 235 Mich. App. 737 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999) (interpretation of "or otherwise attempting" in fleeing statute; broad coverage beyond high-speed chases)
- Lacalamita v. People, 286 Mich. App. 467 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (great-weight-of-the-evidence standard)
- Ericksen v. People, 288 Mich. App. 192 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (presumption that jurors follow curative instructions)
- Bahoda v. People, 448 Mich. 261 (Mich. 1995) (limitations on prosecutor expressing personal opinion of defendant’s guilt)
- Abramski v. People, 257 Mich. App. 71 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003) (fleeing and eluding is a general-intent offense)