Navigate Up
Sign In

156406 - People v Joel Eusevio Davis

The People of the State of Michigan,


Amanda Smith





(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)



(Wayne – Cameron, T.)


Joel Eusevio Davis,


Jacqueline McCann





Defendant assaulted his girlfriend by repeatedly striking her head in the bedroom of their home. When she ran to the living room, he followed and repeatedly punched her in the face, causing her nose and mouth to fill with blood. A jury convicted defendant of assault with intent to do great bodily harm (AWIGBH) and aggravated domestic assault-second offense. On appeal, defendant argued that his convictions violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy because the crimes of AWIGBH and aggravated domestic assault have contradictory intent elements; the AWIGBH statute requires the assault to be committed “with” the intent to do great bodily harm less than murder, whereas the aggravated domestic assault statute requires the assault to be committed “without” the intent to do great bodily harm less than murder. In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals held that defendant was improperly convicted “for a single act under two statutes with contradictory and mutually exclusive provisions” and vacated defendant’s conviction for aggravated domestic assault. Both parties sought leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, which has granted leave to appeal to address: (1) whether the defendant’s convictions under MCL 750.81a(3) and MCL 750.84 violate double jeopardy; (2) whether MCL 750.81a 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 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 the Court of Appeals erred in applying this rule to the facts of this case.  This case will be argued at the same session as People v Price, Docket No. 156180. ​