Defendant
was charged with assault with intent to murder and various weapons offenses
arising from an incident in which Kevin Lawless was shot at the house of a
mutual friend. At trial, Lawless testified that the shooting was preceded by an
argument that started because defendant was playing around with a handgun and
refused Lawless’ request to put the gun away. Lawless explained that, although
he and defendant were arguing 10 feet apart, defendant slapped him. He
testified that defendant then pointed the gun at him and fired. Defendant did
not dispute that he shot Lawless, but he testified that Lawless was angry at
him after defendant refused to lend him money. Defendant said that they had a
heated argument and that when Lawless grabbed a chair and charged at him, he
fired his gun in self-defense or accidentally. In front of the jury, the trial
judge questioned three prosecution witnesses—Lawless, a witness who was present
at the scene, and a police detective. The defense did not object to the
questioning. The jury convicted defendant as charged. In a split unpublished
opinion, the Court of Appeals majority held that the trial judge’s questioning
pierced the veil of judicial impartiality warranting reversal of defendant’s
convictions and a new trial before a new judge. The Supreme Court has directed
oral argument on the prosecutor’s application for leave to appeal to address
whether the trial judge’s questioning of witnesses improperly influenced the
jury by creating the appearance of advocacy or partiality against a party. See People
v Stevens, 498 Mich 162 (2015)