Navigate Up
Sign In

156180 - People v Dorian Lamarr Price

The People of the State of Michigan,

 

Amanda Smith

 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

 

v

(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)

 

 

(Wayne – Scutt, R.)

 

Dorian Lamarr Price,

 

Douglas Baker

 

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Summary

In September 2014, defendant was involved in escalating altercations with Clyde Beauchamp, who was the caretaker of several residential properties in Detroit, including the house in which defendant’s sister-in-law lived with her children. The last incident resulted in defendant shooting Beauchamp. After a bench trial, defendant was convicted of assault with intent to do great bodily harm (AWIGBH) and felonious assault, both arising from the last incident. On appeal, defendant argued that the trial judge, sitting as fact-finder, rendered inconsistent verdicts because AWIGBH requires an “intent to do great bodily harm, less than the crime of murder,” whereas felonious assault is defined as an assault “without intending to commit murder or to inflict great bodily harm less than murder.” Defendant argues that the Legislature did not intend to punish him for the same act under both statutes in violation of double jeopardy. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished split decision. The Supreme Court has directed oral argument on defendant’s application for leave to appeal to address: (1) whether the defendant’s convictions under MCL 750.82 and MCL 750.84 violate double jeopardy; (2) whether MCL 750.82 and MCL 750.84 contain contradictory and mutually exclusive provisions such that the Legislature did not intend a defendant to be convicted of both crimes for the same conduct, compare People v Miller, 498 Mich 13, 18-26 (2015), with People v Doss, 406 Mich 90, 96-99 (1979); (3) whether the Court of Appeals in People v Davis, 320 Mich App 484 (2017), erred in recognizing a rule against mutually exclusive verdicts in Michigan, see generally United States v Powell, 469 US 57, 69 n 8 (1984); State v Davis, 466 SW3d 49 (Tenn, 2015); and (4) whether that rule is applicable to the facts of this case.  This case will be argued at the same session as People v Davis, Docket No. 156406.​