*1 1982] v Pawlak
PEOPLE v PAWLAK 12, Aрril 1982, Docket No. 55580. Submitted at Detroit. Decided 19, October appeal applied 1982. Leave to for. John involuntary manslaughter, Pawlak was convicted of Detroit Court, Roberts, Recorder’s E. James J. The defendant was employed police City charge officer for the of Detroit. The against the defendant arose out of the death of an alcoholic prisoner blackjack whom the defendant had struck with a after placing prisoner Department a cell in a Detroit Police lock-up. prisoner’s The enlarged liver and were so that they impact were in contact blackjack and the sudden of the prisoner’s spleen rupture against caused the his hardened resulting liver appeals in his alleging death. The defendant charging that committing information him with man- slaughter by naturally tending an unlawful act not to cause great bodily death or harm failed to state a crime and that the upon trial court’s verdict was based an erroneous standard that deprived him, officer, police as a of his lawful discretion to use reasonable force. Held: against 1. The comply information filed the defendant did with the definition of as defined Michigan Supreme Court; involuntary manslaughter does require foreseeability intent or principle of harm. The that liability culpable criminal must reflect a mental state is not violated involuntary manslaughter. definition of evidence at support the trial was sufficient to the conviction of involuntary manslaughter. right 2. A making officer has the an arrest to use Here, however, force reasonable under the circumstances. arrested, already the victim placed holding was had been cell, and, presumably, escape. was without means of The severe apparently force that unjust- utilized the defendant was ified. during Even if the incident had occurred the decedent’s arrest, question of fact nevertheless would havе existed as to References for Points in Headnotes [1, 2d, 40 Am Jur 4] Homicide 70. §§ [2, 2d, Appeal 4 Am Jur seg., and Error 159 et §§ 523. 2d, Appeal 5 Am Jur and Error 882. § the circum- was reasonable under the force used whether stances. Affirmed. J., He believed that there dissented. V. *2 support the defendant’s conviction evidence to insufficient manslaughter. involuntary was He believed that the defendant lock-up responsibilities job lawfully performing of his as a the jail. was evidence established that there at the The doorman blackjack, to the only with the which was one blow struck body. parts of or other his side and not to head deceased’s repeated beating place no blows. and there were No took liver and was not aware the deceased’s problem. the He reverse defendant’s conviction. would op Opinion the Court Manslaughter. Involuntary — 1. Homicide killing Involuntary manslaughter the without mal- is of another doing unintentionally, not some unlawful act ice but in and felоny naturally tending amounting or to cause death to a nor harm, bodily negligently doing great act in or in some lawful legal itself, perform duty; negligent a or the omission to manslaughter require or does not intent foreseea- 28.553). (MCL750.321; bility of harm MSA Appeal — — 2. Criminal Law Evidence. court, reviewing determining sufficient evidence A whether conviction, support presented the a must view evidence prosecution light a to tlie and where most favorable found record reveals that a rаtional trier of fact could have proven beyond a of the crime were the essential elements upheld. should be reasonable doubt conviction J. J. V. Appeal — — 3. Criminal Law Evidence. court, reviewing determining A sufficient evidence whether conviction, presented support must view evidence light prosecution to the and determine most favorable whether a have found that rational trier fact could proven beyond a reason- essential еlements the crime were able doubt. Involuntary Manslaughter. — 4. Homicide killing Involuntary mal- without of another doing unintentionally, ice and but in some unlawful act tending amounting felony naturally or cause nor death People v Pawlak Opinion of the Court harm, great bodily negligently doing inor some act lawful in itself, negligent perform legal duty; omission to involuntary manslaughter usual situations in which arises are either when death results from a direct act not intended to bodily produce serious harm or when death results from crimi- negligence. nal Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Louis J. Caruso, General, Cahalan, William L. Solicitor Wilson, Reilly Edward Prosecuting Attorney, Prin- Bernacki, Frank J. cipal Appeals, Attorney, Prosecuting Assistant Attorney, people. for the Ramsdell, Oade, Oade & Feldman K. Preston (by Jr.), defendant on appeal. for Kaufman, P.J.,
Before: N. J.V. Brennan Beasley, JJ. Per Curiam. Defendant was convicted *3 bench trial of involuntary manslaughter, MCL 750.321; 28.553, MSA and was sen- subsequently tenced to five yeаrs probation, with the first nine months to be spent the Wayne Jail County on a work-release program. appeals Defendant now as of right.
The charge against defendant out arose of the 3, 1980, February Warren, death of Fred pris- oner at the Detroit Police Department Second Precinct lock-up where defendant was employed. Warren died as a result being of struck with a blackjack on the left side defendant. The blow was the culmination of an argument bеtween War- ren defendant, an argument that defendant claimed was the result of Warren’s refusal turn over his belt to defendant upon being placed in a cell. Warren apparently a severe alcoholic whose liver spleen were enlarged so that they were in contact. The impact sudden of the black- App 585 Mich
588 Opinion Court against rupture caused Warren’s jack liver, resulting internal substantial hardened bleeding. First, appeal. on raises two issues
Defendant manslaughter an charging the information that tending cause death naturally act not unlawful state a crime. Sec- harm failed to bodily or great upon was based ond, trial verdict that court’s defendant, as deprived that an standard erroneous officer, discretion to use of his lawful a police force. reasonable contends that argument, defendant
In his first cannot involuntary manslaughter the crime of inherently the act committed exist unless death was foresee resulting that dangerous so has defined crime Supreme The Court able. requiring one not involuntary Townes, People foreseeability or harm. intent (1974). 578, 136 591; Mich NW2d was consistent charging defendant information definition, defendant alleging this killed with malice, by and without "unintentionally Warren act, assaulting to wit: an unlawful doing [Warren] act not blackjack, naturally or an slapjack with great harm”. We bodily death tending cause principle criminal do not believe that state is reflect a mеntal liability culpable must the Townes definition violated Aaron, Cf. manslaughter. (1980).
708; 299 NW2d misapplies argument, In his second right doctrine that a officer has *4 reasonable an to use that force making arrest Doss, 406 Mich People under circumstances. (1979). 90, 101-103; 9 The events 276 NW2d did not involve Fred Warren’s death resulted had already arrested, his arrest. Mr. Warren People v Pawlak 589 Opinion op the Court and, placed holding been a cell presumably, escape. without means of Under these circum- stances, the severe force that was apparently uti- Indeed, unjustified. lized defendant was a department applicable memorandum to persons arrested and already imprisoned mandates that no measure of severity justified when there is no reason to fear the prisoner’s escape. Further, even if the incident had occurred during the decedent’s arrest, question a of fact nevertheless would have existed as to whether the forсe used was reason- able under the circumstances.
Defendant does not
argue
specifically
trial
evidence
was insufficient
support
Nevertheless,
conviction.
because defendant
has
alluded to such a claim in his first argument, we
agree with the dissenting
opinion that
such an
argument
bears addressing.
In determining
sufficiency of the evidence supporting
conviction,
a
we view the trial evidence in
light
most favora
ble to the prosecution
and determine whеther
rational
trier of fact could have found the ele
ments of the crime proven beyond a reasonable
doubt. People v Hampton,
354, 368;
407 Mich
285
NW2d 284 (1979); People
Johnson,
112
Mich
483, 489; 316 NW2d
People v Delongch
(1982);
amps, App 151,
Mich
159;
Chuckie who was the cell cell, and War- testified that defendant Warren’s "passing ren led to were words” as Warden was taunted cell. Williams stated that defendant locking cell, then Warren after him reopened spit Wil- the cell door and at Warren. pull out a liams testified that saw defendant blackjack, into it shoulder and run raise over his sight the cell. Williams lost of defendant but heard hitting hitting something sound and then he heard defendant Williams stated that wall. People v Pawlak op Opinion the Court warn Warren that if he moved defendant would split his skull. Langston, diagonally
Claude who was in a cell stag- Warren, across from testified Warren gered spokе profanely to defendant as he was placed Langston in the cell. indicated that defen- *6 listening dant stood outside the cell to Warren spit at him when curse Warren at defendant. spit Defendant back he as re-entered the cell and blackjack. Langston drew out his stated that de- fendant cornered Warren and that Warren at- tempted unsuccessfully punches. to throw Accord- ing Langston, defendant hit Warren once with blackjack and then him in kicked the stomaсh.
Defendant testified on his own behalf. He stated suspected ingesting drugs that he Warren of exchanged bathroom and that the two words as registered. Warren was Defendant claimed that door, after he closed the cell he noticed that War- requested item, ren still had his belt. When he Warren refused and cursed him. He testified that spit spit him, when Warren at he back and en- tered the cell to retrieve the belt. Defendant con- began punches, tended that Warren to throw so he blackjack. struck Warren once in the side with He státed that he then grabbed the belt and left the cell. glaring testimony
A difference between the the defendant and that of the three witnesses to prisoners the incident is that none of observed dispute over Mr. Warren’s belt. Each those witnesses indicated that the blow from the black- jack argument was the culmination of an spitting contest between defendant and Warren begun placed that had before Warren was even Viеwing light the cell. evidence most prosecution, favorable to the trier of a rational J. Dissent V. re-en- that defendant have concluded fact could but retrieve Warren’s belt cell not to tered the angry and wanted Warren because spit- cursing physically ting. retaliate for Warren’s thus of fact could have A rational trier as felonious assault conduct defendant’s viewed great bodily harm. intent to do with or an assault Moreover, accepted true, if a triеr of fact even that he did, claim re- court defendant’s as the trial entered the guilty belt, a cell to retrieve Warren’s supported. As the nevertheless be could verdict trial court plainly observed, have it should been preceded entry arguing that from the evident into going to be that Warren was cell necessary cooperative be that force would although Thus, defendant had a belt. remove his responsibility item, it is manifest to retrieve the accomplishеd with should have been that the aid of other officers to task avoid the need to use department above, severe As noted force. prohibited severity policy absent a measures *7 escape. prisoner’s A rational fear the reason to that defendant trier of fact could have concluded using justification did, force that he had no for therefore, and, committed an unlawful act—at simple battery doing minimum a assault —in Supreme so. Pursuant to the Cоurt’s definition manslaughter People involuntary Townes, in v supra, proven offense could been deemed have beyond reasons, For these we reasonable doubt. affirm defendant’s and sentence. conviction
Affirmed. respectfully (dissenting). I
V. J. J. Brennan, After and evaluation dissent. careful consideration evidence, I of the there was insufficient find support of invol- evidence to defendant’s conviction untary manslaughter. People 593 Pawlak v V. J. determining
When whether there is sufficient convictiоn, to support evidence this Court must in a light view the evidence most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether a rational fact trier of could have found that the essential proven elements the crime were beyond a rea- People sonable doubt. v 407 Hampton, 354, Mich 368; (1979); 285 People Johnson, NW2d 284 v 112 483, 489; (1982). NW2d 247 Townes, 578,
In People v 391 Mich 590-591; 218 (1974), NW2d 136 the Court discussed the crime involuntary manslaughter: involuntary manslaughter, although
"The elements of
completely
not
manslaughtеr
in voluntary
exclusive
those found
distinguishable
are
in
respects.
several
They
originates
a
quite
define
crime that
out of circum-
stances often
tary
different from those found in volun-
and apply to a defendant who did
proceed
not
bodily injury.
with the intent
death
cause
or serious
People
v Ryczek,
leading
In the
case of
110;
(1923),
224 Mich
"4 negligence required to establish App 585
594
V. J.
negligence
ordinary negligence.
Such
kind from
is diffеrent
variously
'gross negligence’
negligence’
and
to
'criminal
as
referred
example,
thoroughly
for
in several cases. See
been discussed
has
Townsend,
(1928);
300;
People
Orr,
NW 777
243 Mich
(1921).”
177;
267;
went throwing pounds, punches weighed began defendant, weighed 1" was 6' tall and who approached him. Defen- the defendant pounds, as hit once punches off the and Warren dant warded left The defendant blackjack on the side. with a.m., then cell. At 6:30 took the left belt for an checked on Warren and radioed two officers abdomen, EMS unit. had a distended very Warren signs rigor mortis. Warren’s signs, no vital A exam- morgue. taken to the medical body was of the cirrhosis iner testified that Warren had enlarged become liver which caused the liver enlarged was also spleen and hardened. Warren’s normal, liver, unlike a contact with the The cause healthy spleen. adult’s liver and causing death was a trauma to Warren’s left side with the hard- rupture on contact ened Due alcoholic disabili- liver. deceased’s *9 People v Pawlak J. V. J. Dissent necessary ties, a hard blow was not for this chain of events to occur. trial court that
The found the defendant was not acting Further, in self-defense. the court found escape, there no of that because was fear no mea- justified, sure of force was and the defendant committed an assault on the deceased. The court stated: carrying night using night idea of "The stick or
stick, blackjack, acquire to prisoner a belt from a for purposes forcefully acquiring of this belt which be- might prisoner himself, injure lieved be used to poor it doing of seems exercise discretion because like it’s prisoner might to the fears what one he todo himself.
"Now, if had testimony there been—and there was no this, any to severe warrant that there was noticeable indications depression any other conditions that would
immediate interference in this matter. one, why, "The court just wonders he left wasn’t alone. Defendant that testified he was—he noticed that he drinking, strong had been odor alcohol on his breath when he well alone. him. I think fairly admitted it can be might asleep;
assumed that he fall just leave him language prisoner, "The accept if we are to defendant, testimony of the exple- when hurled the him belt, tives at when he asked for the indicated —at fеeling least his going when he went in—he wasn’t be cooperative. doors, behind why Since he was locked get could, not it help another officer to so that if the belt be, acquired must could be resorting without It violence? would have seemed me that a second party may might well have rendered violence have— unnecessary.” agree I cannot with the trial conclusion court’s injure intended the de- agree ceased, nor I can with the trial court’s Brennan, V.J. uncoop- considering that, the deceased’s conclusion not have attitude, should the defendant erative attempted there was to retrieve the belt because severely testimony de- the deceased no pressed that the deceased it could be assumed asleep. fall would lawfully police officer, defendant, a responsibilities job
performing as a lock- Although pris- jail. up the three at the doorman *10 eyewitnesses the no mention of dеfen- oner made the cell to re- that he entered dant’s contention belt, the trial court believed the decedent’s trieve testimony the that did enter the defendant’s purpose obtaining Further, the for the of belt. cell testimony though not the the did reveal that even suicidal, an the defendant had obli- deceased was gation any in could be to retrieve article that used attempt. A is a article used a belt common suicide prisoner suicide, the If a committed for suicide. charge very in could well be accused officer negligence removing objects articles
in all not used in a suicide and civil liabilities that could be might Young Arbor, Ann attach. See (1982), police a 512; 326 where NW2d plaintiff her husband officer was sued a after by hanging himself with his belt committed suicide police while cell the station. held detention Michigan Department Also, see of Corrections pointed Rule 791.632. out in defendant’s As the brief:
"Indeed, the judicial this take noticе of may court prisoners suicide number who have committed Michigan articles. jails the of belts or similar use the year With the first six same months defendant, against charged people offense here these, Michigan Of seven jails. committed suicide drug-related. More- were alcohol-related and two were Pawlak Dissent V.J. Beennan, over, since alcohol fully has been factor in one- occurring jails lock-ups; third of the suicides majority County of these in the Wayne а Michigan occurred area. 1980).” Officer, (December, Police vol 8 addition,
In that evidence revealed de- approximately and the fendant equal deceased were during in size. Contacts between the two processed time the defendant the deceased indi- going cooper- that deceased not cated to be Therefore, ative. the defendant was on notice that up give the deceased would not the belt volunta- rily but that the dеfendant would have to take it forcibly him. from The fact the defendant himself, chose to retrieve the belt instead of ob- taining police officers, the assistance of other does not any type indicate that intended to inflict injury on the deceased. police
Also, it is not unreasonable for a officer to carry blackjack. This fact does not indicate that act, the officer intended do an unlawful and in blackjack this instance the manner and use of the blackjack protec- was tive an unlawful act. jailers instrument have to use *11 repel possible assault. Here the defendant had might all the reason believe occur. that this We atmosphere must remember around the jailhouse, especially unruly prisoners when are there, is not akin to a church bazaar. Different and put distinct modes of conduct and duties must be into motion to maintain and convey picture a clear impression charge; not, as tо who is in if there would be chaos.
Moreover, the evidence and the trial established only court found that there struck one blow which was side and not to his deceased’s parts body. beating head or other of his No took place; repeated Further, there were no blows. App V.J. of the deceased’s liver aware clearly was not
officer facts, I cannot these problem. From any to inflict intended the defendant find that unlawful act. an or commit injury the use of force does not condone opinion This dealing prisoners, with officers when police its on own must be decided case I note that each case, I of this find facts However, under facts. lawful duty had a officer where the to use some belt and had prisoner’s retrieve belt, of involun- elements force to retrieve Therefore, I present.. manslaughter were tary conviction. reverse the defendant’s would being issue foregoing disposi- Resolution of tive, unnecessary to discuss defendant’s I find it of error. remaining allegations