People of Michigan v. Dawan Tyner

Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
April 17, 2015 Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice
Stephen J. Markman
Mary Beth Kelly
149800 Brian K. Zahra
Bridget M. McCormack
David F. Viviano
Richard H. Bernstein,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v SC: 149800
COA: 309729
Wayne CC: 06-007375-FC
DAWAN TYNER,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 5, 2014
judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in
lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and
we REMAND this case to the Wayne Circuit Court for proceedings consistent with its
April 12, 2012 order granting the defendant’s motion for new trial and relief from
judgment.
A trial court’s decision to grant a new trial based upon newly-discovered evidence
is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. See People v Terrell, 289 Mich. App. 553, 558
(2010), lv den 489 Mich. 858 (2011). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s
decision is outside the range of principled outcomes. People v Musser, 494 Mich. 337,
348 (2013). Here, the trial court held that three statements by Carlos Strong to his
mother, Carol Turner, and his former girlfriend, Rasheedah Pearson, constituted excited
utterances. Those statements indicated that defendant was not at the crime scene on the
night of the shooting. Finding that the statements satisfied the test for newly-discovered
evidence, including that they would make a different result reasonably probable on
retrial, the trial court ordered a new trial. See People v Cress, 468 Mich. 678 (2003). The
Court of Appeals erred by substituting its own opinion of the credibility and veracity of
the witnesses for that of the trial court. Given the trial court’s superior position to assess
the credibility and veracity of the witnesses, its determination that the newly-discovered
evidence would make a different result probable on retrial was not so egregious that it
was outside the range of principled outcomes. People v Babcock, 469 Mich. 247, 269
(2003). See also Alder v Flint City Coach Lines, Inc, 364 Mich. 29, 38 (1961) (CARR, J.,
2
concurring) (“This Court has repeatedly held that a trial judge, in passing on a motion for
a new trial, is vested with a large discretion. The wisdom of such rule is obvious. The
judge has the advantage of seeing the witnesses on the stand, of listening to their
testimony, of noting the attitude of the jury to various matters that may arise during the
trial, and is in far better position than is an appellate court to pass on questions of possible
prejudice, sympathy, and matters generally that occur in the course of a trial but which do
not appear of record.”).
MCCORMACK, J., not participating because of her prior involvement in this case as
counsel for a party.
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
April 17, 2015
s0414
Clerk