Michigan Criminal Lawyers Blog

In a recent case involving the murder of Othell Lightfoot, the defendant, Deon Crawford, claimed that he shot Lightfoot in the face in self-defense, that he believed Lightfoot was reaching for a weapon. Crawford was charged with first-degree premeditated murder, however the jury acquitted him of this offense and convicted Crawford of second-degree murder. He was sentenced to 25 to 50 years in prison. All of this stemmed from a car crash involving a stolen car which struck several parked vehicles.

At his trial, Crawford argued that he shot Lightfoot in self defense, because he believed the man had a weapon. Upon investigating the scene, police found that the deceased man’s hand was extended into the waist area of his pants. It was determined that the victim did not have a weapon, and the defendant admitted that prior to shooting Lightfoot, he did not actually see a weapon.

Ultimately, Crawford appealed his conviction on the charge of second-degree murder to the Michigan Court of Appeals, arguing that he should have been granted an acquittal based on his argument of self-defense.

The appeals court determined that Crawford’s claim of self-defense hinged on whether the defendant honestly and reasonably felt that the use of deadly force was necessary because his life was in immediate danger. None of the witnesses at trial testified that Crawford was not in danger, however one witness, David Hicks Jr. (the victim’s brother), testified that after Crawford fired the shot, his companion pushed Crawford’s arm down saying, “Hey, what ya doing?” Hicks also fled after being shot in the face, however Crawford continued to fire although he did not actually see a weapon. For these two reasons, the evidence at trial supported that Lightfoot’s actions were not perceived as an immediate threat to the defendant and his companion’s safety.

Crawford’s convictions were upheld by the Michigan appeals court, however his case was remanded back to court for correction of sentence related to felony-firearm charges.

In Michigan, an honest and reasonable belief that an individual’s life is in imminent danger supports justifiable homicide; the defendant’s actions are supposed to be judged solely on how the situation appeared to the defendant, and not others. In this case, it seems that Crawford may have had a better outcome had his companion not said, “Hey, what ya doing?” What does this say about Michigan’s handling of self-defense?

Continue reading

On July 16, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a final opinion in the case of Elijah Dujuan Key who was convicted of murder, home invasion, and other criminal charges in connection with the death of Melisa Ann Robinson. Key was sentenced to life in prison for felony murder, 25 to 50 years in prison for second-degree murder, 2 to 20 years in prison for first-degree home invasion, and given two years for felony firearm.

While the court of appeals did not overturn Key’s convictions, the court did vacate sentencing in part based on double jeopardy, although Key did not raise this issue in his appeal. The panel determined that Key could not be convicted on multiple murder charges arising from the death of one individual. Key was convicted on both felony murder and second-degree murder charges, which violates the constitutional protection against individuals being punished multiple times for a single offense. The appeals court affirmed Key’s conviction for first-degree felony murder, but vacated his conviction and sentence for second-degree murder.

Some of the arguments made by Key in his appeal included his belief that hearsay statements were erroneously admitted at trial in regards to Robinson’s fear of Key, the threats he allegedly made to her before her death, and other statements made by witnesses who were reportedly told these things by the decedent. Key also argued that prosecutors in the case made improper appeals to the jury to elicit sympathy for Robinson, and that the court abused its discretion by allowing into evidence a photo of the shotgun wound suffered by the deceased victim.

The appeals court did not agree with any of Key’s arguments so his conviction for felony murder still stands; however, the double jeopardy issue did result in the panel vacating the second-degree murder conviction and remanding it back to court for issuance of an amended judgment of sentence.

Continue reading

In February of this year, Terry Neil Bowling’s argument that the sentence he received for his conviction of second-degree murder was cruel or unusual punishment was denied by the Michigan Court of Appeals. However, the appeals court did find that a mistake had been made in calculating the amount of restitution Bowling would pay – the court ruled the initial restitution amount of $5,890.33 should be lowered by 10 cents.

Bowling was convicted of second-degree murder in the death of Livonia Police Officer Larry Nehasil in 2011 in connection with a home invasion. According to a news article at the Oakland Press, Nehasil was in pursuit of Bowling and his brother when he was shot outside of the Walled Lake home he and his brother were accused of breaking in to. Bowling was also convicted of resisting/obstructing police and first-degree home invasion.

Initially, Bowling was charged with first-degree murder; however, he agreed to plead no contest to second-degree murder, along with the other charges. Following his conviction, Bowling was sentenced to 100 to 150 years in prison for the murder of Nehasil. He argued in his appeal that considering his age (49), he would spend the remained of his life in prison, and that the sentences for the crimes he was convicted of were excessive. The appeals court disagreed, ruling that the sentences were just.

Bowling appealed the appeals court’s ruling to the Michigan Supreme Court, and on Tuesday July 30 the court issued its ruling which stated that the court was “not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this court.” Bowling’s convictions and sentences will stand.

Michigan criminal appeals attorneys understand that essentially, a sentence of 100 to 150 years is life in prison. Sentencing in this case does seem extremely harsh, however convincing the appeals court is not easily accomplished.

Continue reading