People v. Bass
317 Mich. App. 241
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Victim Evelyn Gunter disappeared March 10, 2013; her charred remains were found March 12, 2013 in an abandoned garage; cause of death: gunshot to the head; body burned with gasoline and bound with wire.
- Defendant Walter Bass III had an intimate relationship with the victim, was the last known person to see her, and later possessed her car and (inferred) her cellphone after she disappeared; his DNA was on a jacket in the car; cell‑tower data linked defendant’s and the victim’s phones after disappearance.
- Witnesses at Club Celebrity (where defendant worked security as “Tiko”) placed defendant with the victim’s Impala the night it was recovered; credit card belonging to the victim was found in the club parking lot the same evening.
- Prosecution introduced prior‑bad‑acts evidence: a 1996 incident in which defendant stabbed, attempted to kill, and sexually assaulted Carmenience Bullard; court treated attempted murder and sexual assault as analytically distinct for admissibility purposes.
- Defendant was convicted by jury of first‑degree premeditated murder, felony murder, felon‑in‑possession of a firearm, felony‑firearm, and mutilation of a human body; sentenced to life without parole plus lengthy concurrent terms; appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior‑acts (MRE 404(b)) | Bullard testimony (attempted murder & sexual assault) shows scheme/identity and is relevant | Prior sexual‑assault evidence was unfairly prejudicial and irrelevant; 404(b) error | Attempted‑murder evidence admissible; sexual‑assault testimony admission was erroneous but harmless (no reversal) |
| Sufficiency of the evidence (identity & elements) | Circumstantial proof (possession of car/phone, tower data, inconsistent explanations, physical similarities to Bullard attack) supports convictions | Evidence was circumstantial and insufficient to prove defendant was the perpetrator or elements (intent, possession, mutilation) beyond reasonable doubt | Viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, sufficient evidence supported convictions for all charged counts |
| Mutilation statute construction (MCL 750.160) | Statute covers permanent damage, defacement, removal of a portion of a dead body; burning qualifies | Defendant urged narrower common‑law tort definition (e.g., dismemberment only) | Court adopts broad plain‑language reading: burning that permanently damages or defaces a portion of a body satisfies statute |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (use of allegedly false testimony) | Alleged knowingly elicited false testimony from witnesses undermined trial fairness | Trial testimony inconsistencies do not prove falsity; defendant failed to show perjury or that any false testimony affected outcome | No plain error shown; defendant failed to prove testimony was actually false or that outcome was affected |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Ackerman, 257 Mich. App. 434 (2003) (MRE 404(b) framework and limiting instructions)
- People v. Watkins, 491 Mich. 450 (2012) (propensity evidence is prejudicial but admissible only if not unfairly so under MRE 403)
- People v. Crawford, 458 Mich. 376 (1998) (MRE 403 unfair prejudice standard)
- People v. Yost, 278 Mich. App. 341 (2008) (identity as element of every offense)
- People v. Bennett, 290 Mich. App. 465 (2010) (elements and inference of premeditation/deliberation)
- People v. Hardiman, 466 Mich. 417 (2002) (permissibility of inferences built on inferences in circumstantial cases)
- People v. Unger, 278 Mich. App. 210 (2008) (deference to trial counsel’s strategic decisions in ineffective‑assistance claims)
- People v. Dowdy, 489 Mich. 373 (2011) (standard for reviewing bindover and motion to quash)