Judicial bias; People v Stevens; Double jeopardy; Convictions of AWIM & felonious assault; People v Miller; People v Gardner

While the court rejected defendant’s judicial bias claim it held that his convictions of AWIM and felonious assault in one of these consolidated appeals violated the prohibition against double jeopardy. Thus, it vacated his felonious assault convictions and affirmed all his other convictions (felony-firearm, domestic violence, first-degree premeditated murder, AWIM, and first-degree home invasion). The cases arose from two incidents and were tried in a consolidated trial. He asserted that references to him and use of the words “uh oh” during the final jury instructions “cast him in a negative light such that it would indicate to the jury that [he] was untrustworthy.” The court noted that “the trial court interspersed jury instructions with anecdotes and stories to provide the jury with examples of its obligations at trial. The purpose of the quoted statement was to clarify to the jury its obligation to duly weigh the evidence before it and to assess and decide matters of credibility through reason and common sense.” The court concluded it “was not unreasonable for the trial court to take extra time to ensure the jury understood its role to make credibility determinations and weigh the evidence before it. For this purpose, the trial court did not make any direct comments about defendant, but used him as one of various examples of how individuals rely on bias to make decisions.” The court noted that the “statement was not critical of defendant, hostile toward him, or indicate incredibility toward” him. Further, even if it assumed the “commentary was inappropriate, it was a single comment in the context of a five-day trial, which included several days of witness testimony. The totality of the circumstances does not demonstrate that the trial judge harbored deep-seated antagonism against defendant.” But the Supreme Court’s order in Gardner was dispositive of his double jeopardy claim. He “was convicted of two counts of AWIM and two counts of felonious assault for” his assaults against the victims. “As explained in Gardner, the convictions for AWIM and felonious assault arising from the same conduct violate double jeopardy. For the reasons explained in Gardner, defendant has established plain error affecting substantial rights.” The court exercised its discretion to vacate his felonious assault convictions “because the impermissible convictions and sentences for these offenses seriously affected the fairness of the judicial proceedings.”