People of Michigan v. Terrence Ray Bunting Jr
330558
Mich. Ct. App.Jun 8, 2017Background
- Early-morning November 8, 2014 armed-robbery of Jacob Hershberger at his apartment; defendants Blake Marcum, Donald Davis, and Terrence Bunting participated in a planned entry; a scuffle inside led to a gun discharge that killed Hershberger.
- Defendants were tried jointly; each convicted of felony murder and related offenses (armed robbery, conspiracy; Marcum and Bunting also convicted of felony-firearm); each sentenced to life without parole for felony murder.
- Cases consolidated on appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals; defendants raised multiple challenges to trial procedures, evidentiary rulings, and prosecutor/judicial conduct.
- Key contested trial rulings: (1) replacement of a deliberating juror with an alternate (Marcum); (2) partial courtroom closure/restrictions on public attendance (Marcum); (3) denial of motion to suppress post-arrest statements as equivocal invocation of right to counsel (Davis); (4) sufficiency of evidence for felony murder via aiding-and-abetting (Davis, Bunting).
- Appellate court affirmed all convictions, holding the trial court acted within its discretion on juror substitution and courtroom limits, Davis’s statements were voluntary and his invocation equivocal, and the evidence supported aiding-and-abetting armed robbery and felony murder convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror substitution (Marcum) — replacing an ill deliberating juror with an alternate | Prosecution: Replacement complied with statute/rule and protections (MCL/MCR); alternate followed instructions; trial court properly restarted deliberations. | Marcum: Ailing juror was likely a holdout; replacing without mistrial hearing deprived him of fair trial and impartial jury. | Court: No abuse of discretion; record lacked evidence juror was a holdout; MCR 6.411/MCL 768.18 followed; manifest necessity standard for mistrial not required for substitution. |
| Right to public trial — partial closure/restricted public attendance (Marcum) | Prosecution: Restrictions necessary to protect sanctity and impartiality of three simultaneous juries; measures narrowly tailored; public access provided via live stream and limited in-court seats. | Marcum: Consolidation/judicial economy insufficient to justify partial courtroom closure; violated Sixth Amendment and state rule. | Court: No constitutional violation; court identified overriding interest, narrowly tailored restriction, provided alternatives and on-record findings per Presley/MCR 8.116(D). |
| Suppression — Davis’s request for counsel during police interview | Prosecution: Davis’s statements were equivocal references to counsel amid repeated voluntary cooperation; officers not required to stop questioning absent clear invocation (Edwards/Miranda standard). | Davis: He said he needed an attorney and asked to stop; interrogation should have ceased and statements suppressed. | Court: Denial of suppression affirmed; Davis’s remarks were ambiguous and inconsistent with continued voluntary cooperation, so no clear invocation of right to counsel. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for felony murder (aiding and abetting) — Davis & Bunting | Prosecution: Evidence showed defendants planned and executed armed robbery, knew co-defendants were armed, provided assistance and directions; malice for felony murder may be inferred from setting in motion a lethal risk and use/possession of weapons. | Defendants: Insufficient proof of malice/intent to create high risk of death; killing was unintended and not a natural/probable consequence for which they should be held liable. | Court: Evidence sufficient; aiding-and-abetting established by planning, physical assistance, and knowledge of firearms; malice inferred from participation in armed entry with weapons—felony murder convictions upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Tate, 244 Mich. App. 553 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (discusses trial court discretion to remove an ill juror and seat an alternate)
- Dry Land Marina, Inc. v. People, 175 Mich. App. 322 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989) (replacement of ailing juror with alternate is permissible and distinct from manifest necessity for mistrial)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2010) (standards for closing court proceedings; closure must serve overriding interest, be narrowly tailored, consider alternatives, and be supported on the record)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (Miranda warnings and right to counsel during custodial interrogation)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (once counsel is requested, interrogation must cease unless counsel is provided or defendant initiates further discussion)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1994) (a suspect’s request for counsel must be clear and unambiguous to require cessation of questioning)
- People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (Mich. 1999) (malice may be inferred from conduct that sets in motion a force likely to cause death or great bodily harm and from use of a deadly weapon)
- People v Robinson, 475 Mich. 1 (Mich. 2006) (aider-and-abettor liability includes intended offenses and natural and probable consequences of intended offenses)