Criminal Law ? Aldrich Legal Services

This week in the Michigan Court of Appeals,Defendant?s convictions arose from two separate incidents involving the C brothers in 11/10. In 3/09, MC hit defendant in the head with a crowbar and served one year in jail for the assault. At the trial in this case, MC and AC both testified that on 11/19/10, defendant held a gun out a car window as he rode past their home. Then on 11/21/10 while AC was driving with MC in the passenger seat, they encountered defendant at a traffic light. AC and defendant exchanged looks, AC followed defendant?s car, defendant brandished the same gun and AC urged him to ?shoot, shoot, shoot.? After hearing a gunshot, the C brothers observed blood coming from the back of AC?s head, where he was grazed with a bullet. The defense theory at trial was that defendant was not present. He argued on appeal that the evidence did not support the 25-point score for a life-threatening injury, and that OV 3 should have been scored at only 10 points for bodily injury requiring medical treatment. The court disagreed. The trial court?s scoring of the sentencing guidelines is reviewed to determine whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion and whether the record evidence adequately supports a particular score. Twenty-five points should be scored for OV 3 if ?[l]ife threatening or permanent incapacitating injury occurred to a victim.? The statute does not require medical testimony to prove a life-threatening injury. A score of 10 points is appropriate if ?[b]odily injury requiring medical treatment occurred to a victim.? The statute mandates assessment of the ?highest number of points possible.? The evidence at trial showed that defendant discharged a loaded firearm toward AC?s vehicle, and a bullet grazed the left rear of his skull. AC testified that he felt something hot, saw blood on his hand after he touched his head, and was in pain. MC observed ?a lot of blood? and described AC?s injury as a ?real big gash? on the back of the head. AC?s uncle observed a ?gush of blood? coming from AC?s head and rushed him to the hospital while calling 911. The uncle explained that AC was ?bleeding so much.? AC received stitches and was in the hospital for three hours before being released. At trial the actual scar on the back of AC?s head, along with photographs of his blood-stained shirt and his blood drippings in the car were shown. The court also held that none of the other issues defendant raised on appeal had merit and affirmed.

The court held, inter alia, that the trial court reasonably inferred from the record evidence as to the location of AC?s wound and the amount of blood the wound produced that AC suffered a ?life-threatening? injury. Thus, the evidence and reasonable inferences arising from it adequately supported the trial court?s 25-point score for OV 3. Aldrich Legal Sercvo

Like this:

Be the first to like this.

Source: http://aldrichlegalservicesblog.wordpress.com/2013/01/25/criminal-law-16/

new york jets etch a sketch romney sean payton saints bounty program toulouse france ny jets ny jets