People v. Orlewicz
293 Mich. App. 96
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Defendant, age 17 at the time, killed the victim, dismembered the body, and attempted to burn the remains.
- The prosecution argued a calculated, premeditated “perfect crime” theory; defendant claimed involvement in a robbery scheme and self-defense under fear of imminent harm.
- A successor judge granted a motion for a new trial based on exclusion of psychiatric testimony; the prosecutor cross-appealed.
- The trial court had excluded psychiatric testimony; defense argued it was relevant to self-defense and to defendant’s credibility.
- The court addressed admissibility of evidence about the victim’s aggressive character, PPOs against the victim, and the victim’s MySpace page; MySpace was ultimately deemed general character evidence, PPOs excluded.
- The court also considered voir dire adequacy, alleged prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance, double jeopardy, and public-trial issues, ultimately reversing the new-trial grant and affirming convictions as modified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the successor judge erred in granting a new trial based on psychiatric evidence | People contends the evidence would illuminate which version occurred | Krause argues the evidence was necessary to present a complete defense | No abuse of discretion; psychiatrist testimony properly excluded |
| Whether PPOs and victim’s MySpace page were admissible to show victim as aggressor | People argues some reputation-based evidence is admissible | Krause contends the MySpace page was relevant to character | PPOs excluded; MySpace page admissible as general character evidence; exclusion harmless |
| Whether prosecutorial misconduct amounted to plain error requiring reversal | People asserts improper evidence and remarks impacted fairness | Krause contends any error was harmless | Harmless given context and lack of objection; no reversal for prosecutorial misconduct |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to certain evidence and instructive errors | People claims counsel should have objected to improper evidence and requested cautions | Krause asserts no prejudice from alleged deficiencies | Counsel not ineffective; errors not prejudicial under totality of circumstances |
| Whether double jeopardy requires vacating the felony-murder conviction and how to remedy overlapping theories | People argues two theories support two convictions | Krause contends double jeopardy prohibits dual convictions for same death | Modify to a single first-degree murder conviction supported by two theories; uphold sentences otherwise |
Key Cases Cited
- Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (U.S. 2006) (meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense; balancing evidence relevance)
- People v. Lemmon, 456 Mich 625 (Mich. 1998) (abuse of discretion review for new-trial rulings; range of principled outcomes)
- People v. McPherson, 263 Mich App 124 (Mich. App. 2004) (de novo review on pure questions of law; evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- People v. Lukity, 460 Mich 484 (Mich. 1999) (concerning de novo review and standard for preserved/unpreserved error)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (U.S. 2010) (public-trial right extension to jury voir dire; requires overruling considerations and alternatives)
- People v. Vaughn, 291 Mich App 171 (Mich. App. 2010) (failure to object to closure forfeits public-trial relief)