|
No. 120363
| People
of the State of Michigan, |
|
Janet M. Boes (989) 790-5330 |
|
Plaintiff-Appellee,
|
|
|
| vs (Appeal
from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
|
(Saginaw
-- Heathscott, L.)
|
|
|
| Daniel Jesse Gonzalez, |
|
Susan M. Meinberg (313) 256-9833 |
|
Defendant-Appellant.
|
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's
Brief on Appeal>>
Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan
Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
On February 13, 1998, officers responded to a fire at an apartment
building in Saginaw; they discovered Carol Easlick's body in her apartment.
It was determined that she was killed by blunt force to the head and
strangulation, and that the fire was set intentionally. A State Police
expert testified that sperm discovered in Easlick's mouth, vagina, and
anus did not match DNA from blood samples taken from Woodrow Couch,
the companion of defendant Daniel Jesse Gonzalez. A blood sample taken
from Gonzalez resulted in a four-probe match between the blood sample
and the sperm donor of the DNA found in the vagina; the likelihood of
another person having the same DNA markers was 18.7 million to one,
the expert testified. Gonzalez was arrested and charged with first-degree
murder, arson, and first-degree criminal sexual conduct. He maintained
that he did not commit the crimes and was not present when the crimes
took place. At trial, the prosecution presented 27 witnesses, including
Couch. Couch admitted going to Easlick's apartment with Gonzalez. Couch
testified that Gonzalez later told Couch that Gonzalez returned to the
apartment and had sex with Easlick, and then hit her with a baseball
bat. Couch admitted that when he first spoke to the police, he told
them that Gonzalez had been with him the entire evening, but didn't
inform them that he, Couch, had been drinking. A jury convicted defendant
Gonzalez of all charges. Saginaw County Circuit Judge Lynda L. Heathscott
sentenced him to 10 to 20 years for arson, 30 to 50 years for first-degree
criminal sexual conduct, and life imprisonment for first-degree murder
and felony murder. Gonzalez appealed, raising three arguments. First,
he contended that the trial judge committed reversible error by not
instructing the jury on the unreliability of accomplice testimony as
to Couch. Gonzalez conceded that defense counsel did not ask for the
instruction. Because the case was "closely drawn" and turned
on a credibility contest between Gonzalez and Couch, however, the judge
should have given the instruction without being asked, Gonzalez argued.
Secondly, Gonzalez asserted that his defense counsel was ineffective
because the attorney did not ask for the accomplice instruction. Finally,
Gonzalez contended that there was insufficient evidence to support the
first-degree murder conviction. In an unpublished per curiam opinion,
the Court of Appeals stated that the lack of the accomplice instruction
did not interfere with Gonzalez's right to a fair trial. The court did
vacate the criminal sexual conduct and arson convictions because it
was unclear which crime was the basis for the felony murder conviction.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeals directed the trial court to correct
the judgment. Gonzalez appeals.
|
