People of Michigan v. Ruth Pozdol
330198
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 21, 2017Background
- Defendant Ruth Pozdol followed 76-year-old Clifford Haywald from a restaurant, took his truck keys, and drove the truck while Haywald clung to the door; he later fell and died from injuries sustained during that sequence.
- Defendant admitted leaving a rehabilitation facility to obtain heroin, sold Haywald’s truck, paid an accomplice $50, and used the proceeds to buy heroin.
- Charged with first-degree felony murder and carjacking, she was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life without parole plus 17½–60 years.
- At trial the court admitted evidence of defendant’s post-carjacking drug purchases/usage and sale of the truck under MRE 404(b).
- Trial court instructed on felony murder and second-degree murder but denied defense request for involuntary manslaughter instruction.
- Defendant raised ineffective-assistance claims (including withdrawal of an insanity defense and failure to call experts) and challenged imposition of appointed-attorney fees without an ability-to-pay inquiry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of post-carjacking drug purchases/use and sale of truck | Evidence was admissible under MRE 404(b) to show motive and intent (addiction-driven motive to take truck and culpable state of mind) | Evidence was irrelevant and highly prejudicial; had no connection to conduct at parking lot | Admitted: evidence was relevant to motive/intent, probative value outweighed prejudice, limiting instruction given |
| Requested involuntary manslaughter instruction | Not applicable because evidence showed malice and carjacking is a felony | Requested because defendant testified she lacked intent to harm or kill | Denied: rational view of evidence did not support involuntary manslaughter; evidence showed wanton/willful disregard (malice); carjacking being a felony also barred that instruction |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel (withdrawing insanity defense; not calling experts) | Counsel’s strategic choices were reasonable given forensic report finding competency; failure to pursue/consult about insanity or experts undermined defense | Counsel withdrew insanity defense after reviewing forensic report; pursued lack-of-intent theory; calling experts was trial strategy and no offer of proof provided | No relief: counsel’s choices fell within reasonable strategy; defendant failed to show deficient investigation or prejudice |
| Assessment of court-appointed attorney fees without ability-to-pay inquiry | Fees were properly assessed but enforcement-stage ability-to-pay inquiry is when assessment is required | Trial court erred by imposing fees without assessing ability to pay now | No remand: per Jackson, ability-to-pay assessment is required upon enforcement and challenge, so current claim premature |
Key Cases Cited
- Starr v. People, 457 Mich 490 (rule that MRE 404(b) is inclusionary and lists non-character purposes for admitting other-acts evidence)
- Goecke v. People, 457 Mich 442 (definition of malice: intent to kill, intent to cause great bodily harm, or wanton/willful disregard)
- Mendoza v. People, 468 Mich 527 (involuntary manslaughter is a necessarily included lesser offense of murder)
- Knox v. People, 469 Mich 502 (limits on admitting prior bad-act evidence when no connection exists between acts)
- Jackson v. People, 483 Mich 271 (distinction between assessment and enforcement of appointed-attorney fees; ability-to-pay inquiry at enforcement)
- Dobek v. People, 274 Mich App 58 (standard for reviewing preserved instructional error)