People of Michigan v. Toshi Edward Willingham
331267
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 15, 2017Background
- On May 11, 2015 defendant confronted his ex-girlfriend Ashley Davis in a liquor-store parking lot; Davis and others left in a car and defendant fired multiple rounds at the vehicle. Four bullets struck the car; shell casings were recovered.
- A nine-millimeter handgun recovered in an unrelated search was forensically linked to some of the casings from the parking lot; a photo showed defendant holding that gun.
- Davis made a 911 call and later spoke to Officer Ingersoll; she did not testify at trial. Recordings of the 911 call and Davis’s recorded interview were played for the jury.
- Defendant was tried by jury and convicted of assault with intent to commit murder (AWIM) and felony-firearm; the court sentenced him as a fourth-offense habitual offender to consecutive terms (2 years felony-firearm; 30–90 years AWIM).
- On appeal defendant challenged sufficiency of evidence for AWIM and felony-firearm, admission of Davis’s out-of-court statements (hearsay and Confrontation Clause), OV 6 scoring (premeditation), and habitual-offender treatment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for AWIM (intent to kill) | Evidence (weapon, eight shots toward occupied car, prior fight) supports inference of intent to kill | Shots could have been intended only to scare; evidence insufficient to prove intent to kill | Affirmed: circumstantial evidence and inferences support a rational juror finding intent to kill |
| Admission of 911 call & victim interview (hearsay / MCL 768.27c) | Statements fit domestic-violence statutory exception, present-sense impression/excited utterance; trustworthy and corroborated | Statements were hearsay and untrustworthy; admission violated MCL 768.27c | Affirmed: statements admissible under MCL 768.27c; trustworthiness supported by corroboration and circumstances |
| Confrontation Clause challenge to victim statements | Statements were nontestimonial (made to address an ongoing emergency) so no Sixth Amendment violation | Statements were testimonial and admission violated Confrontation Clause | Affirmed: 911 call and officer interview were nontestimonial given ongoing emergency factors |
| OV 6 scoring (premeditation) and habitual-offender status | OV6 properly scored 50 (premeditated intent); defendant had sufficient prior felonies to support 4th-offender treatment | OV6 should be 25 (no premeditation); prior-record errors and non-felonies negate 4th-offender status | Affirmed: record supports premeditation; defendant had multiple prior felonies so enhancement proper; counsel not ineffective for failing to object |
| Sufficiency of evidence for felony-firearm & suppression | Possession shown by eyewitness testimony, victim statements, and photo linking defendant to gun | No direct proof defendant possessed the specific recovered gun; suppression should have been sought | Affirmed: circumstantial evidence sufficed to show possession; suppression motion would have been meritless |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Cline, 276 Mich. App. 634 (review standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- People v Smith-Anthony, 494 Mich. 669 (standards for viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecutor)
- People v Hardiman, 466 Mich. 417 (deference to jury on inferences; prosecution need not negate every theory of innocence)
- People v Nowack, 462 Mich. 392 (circumstantial evidence can sustain convictions)
- People v Unger, 278 Mich. App. 210 (minimal circumstantial evidence can establish intent)
- People v Brown, 267 Mich. App. 141 (factors for inferring intent to kill)
- People v Henderson, 306 Mich. App. 1 (use of a deadly weapon as evidence of intent)
- People v Ericksen, 288 Mich. App. 192 (elements of AWIM)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (testimonial vs. nontestimonial statements; ongoing emergency test)
- Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344 (primary-purpose test for Confrontation Clause; objective evaluation of circumstances)
- People v Meissner, 294 Mich. App. 438 (domestic-violence statutory exception trustworthiness is nonexclusive)
- People v Steanhouse, 313 Mich. App. 1 (distinguishing intent to kill from premeditation)
- People v Coy, 243 Mich. App. 283 (factors supporting premeditation)
- People v Gursky, 486 Mich. 596 (admissibility under hearsay exceptions)
- People v Putman, 309 Mich. App. 240 (no ineffective assistance for failing to make futile objections)
- People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich. 38 (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance in sentencing contexts)