Motion to reinstate an AWIM charge after the district court declined to bind defendant over on it; People v Yost; Probable cause; People v Plunkett; People v Schurr; Intent to kill; People v Brown; People v Ericksen

Holding that there was probable cause supporting the AWIM charge, the court concluded that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to bind defendant over for trial on the charge and the circuit court erred in denying the prosecution’s motion to reinstate it. The prosecution presented “evidence that after arguing for several minutes with” the victim (A), “defendant repeatedly stabbed and swung a knife toward [A’s] head and face, and during the assault, defendant told [A] that he would cut his face. Although [he] made no direct statement that he intended to kill [A], one could infer such an intent from the relentless assault and the extreme force that defendant used when swinging the blade. [A] testified that he was stabbed in the hand because he used his hands to shield his face, and the wounds were serious enough to require surgery to repair the muscles, tendons, and nerves in the hand. If [A’s] defensive maneuvers had been unsuccessful, then he would have suffered those injuries to his head and likely could have died. Defendant’s argument that his actions demonstrated only an intent to cause great bodily harm is a factual question[.]” The court noted the “district court stated that the prosecution had to show the intent to kill ‘from what happened or show it from, you know, the words of the defendant . . . and I don’t have that here.’ But even if the district court personally believed that defendant did not intend to kill [A], the conflicting evidence from the vicious nature of the assault and the extent of [A’s] injuries created probable cause to support an AWIM charge.” The court vacated the circuit court’s order denying the prosecution’s motion to reinstate the charge, and remanded.