People of Michigan v. Robert Anthony Jasper
330836
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 22, 2017Background
- Defendant (Jasper) fired a single shot from his motorcycle at Brett Reece’s Honda Civic on I-696 on May 23, 2014; parties stipulated Jasper discharged the firearm.
- Jury convicted Jasper of discharging a firearm from a motor vehicle (MCL 750.234a) and felony-firearm (MCL 750.227b), but acquitted him of assault with intent to commit murder and felonious assault.
- At trial, Jasper testified he intended only to “mess up” the car and did not intend to harm Reece; prosecution argued intent to injure or create reasonable apprehension could be inferred from shooting at a vehicle.
- Defense did not object to jury instructions or the court’s response to a jury question during deliberations; counsel expressly stated “there are no objections.”
- Jury submitted a deliberation question about the felonious-assault instruction; the court instructed jurors to rely on the given jury instructions and they then returned verdicts.
- Trial court sentenced Jasper to minimal costs and two years’ imprisonment for felony-firearm; Jasper appealed arguing insufficient evidence for felony-firearm, inconsistent/compromise verdict, instructional error, and cumulative error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for felony-firearm | Evidence (shooting at moving car; stipulation that defendant discharged firearm) permitted inference of intent to injure or create apprehension, supporting felony-firearm conviction | Acquittal of felonious assault shows jury could not have found predicate felony, so felony-firearm conviction is unsupported | Conviction affirmed; sufficient circumstantial evidence supported felonious assault/predicate and thus felony-firearm despite acquittal on felonious assault |
| Inconsistent/compromise verdict | N/A (prosecution) | Jury’s acquittal on felonious assault but conviction on felony-firearm shows impermissible compromise or confusion denying fair trial | Not reversible; inconsistent verdicts are permissible (may reflect mistake, compromise, or leniency) and jurors are not bound by strict logic |
| Jury confusion and instructional response | N/A (prosecution) | Jury question about felonious-assault wording shows confusion that was not cured by the court’s reply, affecting fairness | No reversible error; court’s direction to rely on instructions cured confusion, and jurors presumed to follow instructions |
| Jury-instruction error (felony-firearm wording) | Trial court properly instructed that felony-firearm requires finding defendant committed the predicate felony | Instruction allegedly defective under People v Lewis because jury must find defendant committed or attempted a felony as element of felony-firearm | Waived by defense counsel’s express approval of instructions; alternatively, instruction complied with Lewis and was correct |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Lewis, 415 Mich 443 (Mich. 1982) (felony-firearm requires commission/attempt of felony; judge should instruct jury accordingly)
- People v Goss, 446 Mich 587 (Mich. 1994) (inconsistent jury verdicts can result from mistake, compromise, or leniency and are generally permissible)
- People v Carines, 460 Mich 750 (Mich. 1999) (plain-error test; three-prong standard including effect on substantial rights)
- People v Kowalski, 489 Mich 488 (Mich. 2011) (waiver: counsel’s express approval of instructions constitutes waiver of appellate review)
- People v Avant, 235 Mich App 499 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999) (elements of felonious assault: assault with dangerous weapon and intent to injure or create apprehension)