12.3Bench Trial1
A.Is Disqualification An Issue?
“Disqualification is appropriate when a judge cannot impartially hear a case, including when the judge is personally biased or prejudiced for or against a party or attorney.” People v Coones, 216 Mich App 721, 726 (1996) (opinion by Bandstra, J.); see MCR 2.003(C).
Committee Tip:
When a defendant opts for a bench trial, the trial judge’s prior involvement with the case may call for consideration of reassignment if the judge is too familiar with the file. See MCR 2.003. Consider obtaining express approval of the parties to proceed if the court has had prior involvement with the case.
A trial court may consider disqualification when it has heard the factual basis for an aborted guilty plea. See People v Cocuzza, 413 Mich 78 (1982). However, where the defendant, “[w]ith full knowledge of the trial judge’s prior involvement[,] . . . elected to proceed with a bench trial” notwithstanding that the “judge had previously heard the defendant proffer a factual basis for the charge of which he was ultimately convicted[,]” the judge was not required to sua sponte raise the issue of disqualification. Id. at 79, 83-84.
For discussion of judicial disqualification, see the Michigan Judicial Institute’s Judicial Disqualification in Michigan.
B.Pretrial Motions in a Bench Trial
Unless required to do so by a particular court rule, the trial court is not required to explain its reasoning and state its findings of fact on pretrial motions, but doing so is preferable for purposes of appellate review. MCR 2.517(A)(4); People v Shields, 200 Mich App 554, 558 (1993).
C.Evidentiary Issues in a Bench Trial
“Bench trials stand in sharp contrast to jury trials. A jury is required to consider all the evidence and to render a unanimous verdict, without the need for explanation. In a bench trial, however, the trial court is obligated to ‘find the facts specially, state separately its conclusions of law, and direct entry of the appropriate judgment.” People v Wang, 505 Mich 239, 250 (2020); MCR 6.403; MCR 6.410(B). “Because of this, reviewing courts are provided greater insight into the specific evidence found by the trial court to support verdicts in bench trials.” Wang, 505 Mich at 250.
“[A] judge in a bench trial must arrive at his or her decision based upon the evidence in the case[ and] . . . may not go outside the record in determining guilt.” People v Simon, 189 Mich App 565, 568 (1991). “When the factfinder relies on extraneous evidence, the defendant is denied his [or her] constitutional right to confront all the witnesses against him [or her] and to get all the evidence on the record.” Id. Although a factfinder may rely on generalized knowledge, common sense, and everyday experience, during a bench trial the judge may not rely on his or her own specialized knowledge in reaching a verdict. Id. at 567-568 (holding that the trial judge erred in convicting the defendant “based in part on . . . what he had learned about drug raids while a prosecutor”).
Except as provided by MCL 768.26, which authorizes the prosecution’s use of a preliminary examination transcript when a witness is unavailable at trial, it is error requiring reversal for the trial judge during a bench trial to refer to the preliminary examination transcript. People v Ramsey, 385 Mich 221, 225 (1971). Cf. People v Pennington, 323 Mich App 452, 459 (2018), where, in a bench trial, “the trial court was merely using the preliminary examination transcript to follow along as the prosecution used that testimony to impeach the witness” and “[b]ecause the trial court only reviewed the portion of the transcript properly read into the record, it did not consider any testimony that was not admitted at trial.” “[T]he record indicate[d] that the judge understood that the portion of the preliminary examination read to the witness was admissible only for impeachment and that she was using the transcript only to assist her with following the prosecutor’s recitation of the testimony when impeaching the witness.” Id. at 459. “Unlike the situation in Ramsey, the trial court did not consider testimony not admitted at trial and so there [was] no Confrontation Clause violation.” Pennington, 323 Mich App at 459.
“On application of either party or on its own initiative, the court sitting as trier of fact without a jury may view property or a place where a material event occurred.” MCR 2.507(D).2
MCR 6.419(D) provides:
“In an action tried without a jury, after the prosecutor has rested the prosecution’s case-in-chief, the defendant, without waiving the right to offer evidence if the motion is not granted, may move for acquittal on the ground that a reasonable doubt exists. The court may then determine the facts and render a verdict of acquittal, or may decline to render judgment until the close of all the evidence. If the court renders a verdict of acquittal, the court shall make findings of fact.”
The motion “is in the nature of a jury trial motion for a directed verdict and in both jury and nonjury trials is governed by the rule that the prosecutor has the burden of producing in [the] case in chief some evidence as to each element of the crime charged[.]” People v DeClerk, 400 Mich 10, 17 (1977).
At the conclusion of the case, the trial court “must find the facts specially, state separately its conclusions of law, and direct entry of the appropriate judgment.” MCR 6.403. The trial court must also “state its findings and conclusions on the record or in a written opinion made a part of the record.” Id. A trial court’s articulation of the law it applied to the facts of the case is designed to aid appellate review. People v Johnson (Gary) (On Rehearing), 208 Mich App 137, 141 (1994). Findings are sufficient if it appears that the court was aware of the relevant issues and correctly applied the law. People v Smith (Kerry), 211 Mich App 233, 235 (1995).
Although a jury may return inconsistent verdicts, “a trial judge sitting as the trier of fact may not enter an inconsistent verdict.” People v Walker (Alonzo), 461 Mich 908, 908 (1999) (holding that where the trial court convicted the defendant of malicious destruction of property resulting from the discharge of a firearm, yet dismissed a charge of felony-firearm, the verdict was “patently inconsistent[]” and improper); see also People v Vaughn (Marcus), 409 Mich 463, 465-466 (1980).
Committee Tip:
When rendering a decision after a bench trial, it is recommended that the trial court include the following in its statement of findings and conclusions and/or in its written opinion:
•applicable statutes, if any;
•applicable jury instructions (including elements of the offense and any lesser offenses);
•the burden of proof;
•any presumptions that may apply;
•findings of fact sufficient to show an appellate court that the trial judge was aware of the issues and correctly applied the appropriate law;
•conclusions of law; and
•entry of the appropriate judgment.
See the Michigan Judicial Institute’s checklist on bench trial decisions.
A trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed for clear error by the appellate court. MCR 2.613(C). “In the application of this principle, regard shall be given to the special opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before it.” Id. Questions of law and of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo. People v Lanzo Constr Co, 272 Mich App 470, 473-474 (2006).
When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in a bench trial, the appellate court reviews the record de novo. Lanzo Constr Co, 272 Mich App at 473-474. “The evidence is viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether the trial court could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. at 474. The trier of fact may make reasonable inferences from evidence in the record but may not make inferences completely unsupported by any direct or circumstantial evidence. People v Petrella, 424 Mich 221, 275 (1985).