People v. Powell
303 Mich. App. 271
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Powell was convicted of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm) and sentenced to two years in prison.
- On appeal, the defense moved for a new trial; the trial court denied it, and the appellate court remanded to hold an evidentiary hearing.
- On remand, the trial court granted a new trial; the prosecution appealed, and the two dockets were consolidated for review.
- Powell argued the felony-firearm statute is unconstitutional as applied because the jury acquitted him of possession with intent to deliver marijuana.
- The trial court’s jury instruction after a third note was challenged as a potential deprivation of Powell’s right to counsel and presence at a critical stage.
- The court addressed whether excluding Powell’s evidence of a valid concealed pistol license (CPL) was an abuse of discretion and whether the new-trial grant was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of felony-firearm as applied | Powell argues the statute violates his right to bear arms. | Powell contends the statute violates constitutional rights as applied given his acquittal on the underlying offense. | Statute constitutional as applied; underlying principles support validity |
| Jury-note handling and right to counsel/presence | Challenge to administrative follow-up instruction after third note impairs rights. | Instruction was administrative, not prejudicial; no error in presence or counsel. | No reversible error; instruction deemed administrative and non-prejudicial |
| Exclusion of CPL evidence and right to present a defense | Exclusion of CPL evidence denied defendant the defense that he lawfully possessed the handgun. | Exclusion was improper and deprived him of a meaningful defense. | Abuse of discretion to exclude CPL evidence; deprived right to present a defense |
| Whether the new-trial grant was proper | Exclusion of critical defense evidence warrants a new trial and possible reversal. | Trial court properly granted a new trial on various grounds, including impact of exclusion. | New trial affirmed; proper basis supported, including impact on defense |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Graham, 125 Mich App 168; 335 NW2d 658 (Michigan Appellate 1983) (right to bear arms not absolute; felony-firearm context)
- People v Deroche, 299 Mich App 301; 829 NW2d 891 (Michigan Appellate 2013) (limits on right to keep and bear arms; felon regulation)
- People v Brown, 294 Mich App 377; 811 NW2d 531 (Michigan Appellate 2011) (de novo review of constitutional questions)
- People v Abraham, 256 Mich App 265; 662 NW2d 836 (Michigan Appellate 2003) (jury instructions and multiple offenses elements; applicability)
- People v Goss (After Remand), 446 Mich 587; 521 NW2d 312 (Michigan Supreme Court 1994) (dual conclusions on same elements; jury verdicts may diverge)
- People v France, 436 Mich 138; 461 NW2d 621 (Michigan Supreme Court 1990) (ex parte jury communications; classifications of communications)
- People v Sullivan, 392 Mich 324; 220 NW2d 441 (Michigan Supreme Court 1974) (ABA standard on jury deliberations)
- People v Brooks, 453 Mich 511; 557 NW2d 106 (Michigan Supreme Court 1996) (relevance and materiality of evidence; new-trial standards)
- People v Rao, 491 Mich 271; 815 NW2d 105 (Michigan Supreme Court 2012) (abuse-of-discretion standard for new-trial decision)
- People v Anstey, 476 Mich 436; 719 NW2d 579 (Michigan Supreme Court 2006) (right to present defense and materiality)
- People v Willing, 267 Mich App 208; 704 NW2d 472 (Michigan Appellate 2005) (structural error doctrine for complete denial of counsel)
- People v Mallory, 421 Mich 229; 365 NW2d 673 (Michigan Supreme Court 1984) (right to be present during instructions and trial stages)
- People v France, 436 Mich 138; 461 NW2d 621 (Michigan Supreme Court 1990) (ex parte jury communications; categories of prejudice)
- People v Gursky, 486 Mich 596; 786 NW2d 579 (Michigan Supreme Court 2010) (evidentiary rulings and abuse of discretion standards)
- People v Witherspoon, 257 Mich App 329; 670 NW2d 434 (Michigan Appellate 2003) (will not reverse when correct result reached for wrong reason)