People of Michigan v. Terrell Mark Cajar
326890
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- Defendant Terrell Mark Cajar was convicted at a bench trial of second-degree murder and felony-firearm for a fatal shooting that occurred during an exchange of gunfire between two groups on a city street.
- The victim was shot in the back of the head; initial shots had been fired earlier at a vehicle outside the victim’s home, followed by a broader shootout that produced the fatality.
- Multiple witnesses gave conflicting testimony, but some witnesses placed Cajar firing a handgun in the air and at a vehicle during the initial incident and firing from his home during the later exchange; testimony also implicated Cajar’s brother firing a rifle.
- The trial court acquitted Cajar of first-degree murder but convicted him of second-degree murder on an aiding-and-abetting theory, finding he intended to assist in conduct showing wanton and willful disregard for life.
- Cajar was sentenced within the guidelines to 18 years, 9 months to 30 years for second-degree murder and two years for felony-firearm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Cajar) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence / mens rea for second-degree murder (aiding and abetting) | Evidence showed Cajar fired and aided the shootout; his conduct created the high risk required for malice and aided the killing. | Initial property-directed shots could not naturally lead to a death; alternatively, insufficient evidence he fired during the fatal exchange. | Affirmed — viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, trial court reasonably found Cajar aided the gun battle and had the requisite intent. |
| OV 6 scoring (25 points) and proportionality of sentence | OV 6 properly scored because court found unpremeditated intent to kill or creation of very high risk; sentence within guidelines is presumptively proportionate. | Court erred in assessing 25 points; sentence is disproportionate given age, minimal record, education, and possible friendly fire. | Affirmed — trial court’s factual findings supported OV 6; no unusual circumstances shown to rebut presumptive proportionality. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Kanaan, 278 Mich. App. 594 (circumstantial evidence and witness credibility standards in sufficiency review)
- People v Reese, 491 Mich. 127 (clear-error standard for bench-trial factual findings)
- People v Henderson, 306 Mich. App. 1 (elements of second-degree murder and malice)
- People v Robinson, 475 Mich. 1 (aiding and abetting and natural-and-probable-consequence doctrine)
- People v Moore, 470 Mich. 56 (definition of aiding and abetting as assistance by words or deeds)
- People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (elements required to prove aiding and abetting)
- People v Hardy, 494 Mich. 430 (standards for reviewing sentencing guideline factual findings and statutory interpretation)
- People v Armisted, 295 Mich. App. 32 (abuse-of-discretion standard for proportionality review)
- People v Bowling, 299 Mich. App. 552 (presumptive proportionality of guidelines-range sentences)