People of Michigan v. Ronnie Lee Kirby Jr
327189
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jan 17, 2017Background
- Defendant Ronnie Lee Kirby, Jr. convicted by a jury of felonious assault (MCL 750.82) and felony-firearm (MCL 750.227b); sentence 13–48 months plus consecutive 2 years.
- Victim Benjamin Gebert was repossessing a Toyota Corolla belonging to Kirby’s girlfriend when Kirby approached; Gebert testified Kirby removed an assault rifle from the car and pointed it at him, demanding release of the vehicle.
- Kirby and the vehicle owner (Autumn Smith‑Asher) testified the rifle fell from its case and was not pointed at Gebert.
- Trial court denied Kirby’s motion for a new trial claiming the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence; Kirby also argued insufficient evidence for felonious assault.
- Kirby sought to question witnesses about legality of the repossession; trial court excluded that evidence as irrelevant because Kirby lacked standing and legality did not negate assault.
- Kirby challenged the trial judge’s questioning as partial; the court found some improper tone but, considering the totality of circumstances and curative instruction, no plain error affecting substantial rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether verdict was against great weight of the evidence | Gebert’s testimony credible; jury entitled to resolve conflicts | Gebert’s testimony was incredible/inconsistent; warrants new trial | Denied: conflicting testimony within jury’s purview; impeachments not so severe to deprive testimony of probative value |
| Sufficiency of evidence for felonious assault | Prosecution proved defendant pointed a rifle, supporting conviction | Defendant did not point or threaten with the gun | Rejected: evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find assault beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Admissibility of evidence about repossession legality | Legality irrelevant; defendant lacks standing to challenge repossession | Legality bears on defendant’s actions and credibility; should be admissible | Exclusion affirmed: repossession legality immaterial to assault charge and Kirby lacked standing |
| Judicial impartiality based on judge’s questioning | Judge’s tone showed bias but not sufficiently prejudicial | Judicial questioning created appearance of partiality, denied fair trial | No reversible error: some improper tone but brief, limited, curative instruction given; no plain error affecting substantial rights |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210 (1998) (standard for reviewing denial of motion for new trial).
- People v Young, 276 Mich App 446 (2007) (abuse of discretion defined).
- People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192 (2010) (prosecution’s burden to prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt).
- People v Lemmon, 456 Mich 625 (1998) (standard for verdict against the great weight of the evidence and credibility review).
- People v Henderson, 306 Mich App 1 (2014) (de novo review of sufficiency of the evidence).
- People v Kanaan, 278 Mich App 594 (2008) (deference to jury on credibility and weight of evidence).
- People v Layher, 464 Mich 756 (2001) (abuse of discretion for evidentiary rulings).
- People v Eliason, 300 Mich App 293 (2013) (materiality and relevance of facts in controversy).
- People v Stevens, 498 Mich 162 (2015) (analysis for judicial questioning and appearance of partiality).
- People v Cheeks, 216 Mich App 470 (1996) (defendant’s right to a neutral and detached magistrate).
- People v Carines, 460 Mich 750 (1999) (plain error standard for unpreserved claims).
- People v Albers, 258 Mich App 578 (2003) (issues not properly briefed may be deemed abandoned).
- People v Petri, 279 Mich App 407 (2008) (abandonment of unbriefed issues).