|
No. 137908
| People of the State of Michigan, |
|
Richard J. Goodman |
Plaintiff-Appellant, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Macomb - Miller, D.) |
|
|
| Steven James Hoch, |
|
Neil J. Leithauser |
Defendant-Appellee. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellant's Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Plaintiff-Appellant's Supplemental Brief>>
Defendant-Appellee's Brief in Opposition to Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellee's Supplemental Brief>>
Background
Steven Hoch stole LeAnn Goforth’s purse out of her SUV while she was at a gas station. Hoch fled from the gas station in his truck, but Goforth pursued him. When Hoch stopped for a red light, Goforth maneuvered her vehicle in front of his, got out, ran to Hoch’s truck, and pulled his door open. She demanded that Hoch return her purse. Hoch denied having it. During this exchange, Hoch’s truck moved forward, and the door clipped Goforth’s shoulder. Hoch drove away, and Goforth called 911 and continued to follow him. Eventually police officers took up the chase, and stopped Hoch. He was arrested and charged with unarmed robbery, larceny from the person, fleeing and eluding, larceny of under $200 from a motor vehicle, and driving while license suspended, second offense. At trial, Hoch admitted that he stole Goforth’s purse, but argued that he did not assault her during the theft. He claimed that any injury that she received while at his truck was accidental. The judge assigned to the case was on vacation when the case was scheduled to begin. A visiting judge took the proofs and instructed the jury. He told the jury that an assault was required in order to prove the crime of unarmed robbery, and that an assault cannot happen by accident. He said that a copy of the instructions would be provided to the jury. The attorneys said that they were satisfied with the instructions. The case went to the jury in the late afternoon on a Friday. The jury deliberated for about an hour and a half before being dismissed for the weekend. The next Monday, the sitting judge returned as the jury continued its deliberations. Late in the afternoon it returned a verdict of guilty on all counts: unarmed robbery, fleeing and eluding, larceny of under $200 from a motor vehicle, and driving while license suspended, second offense. At sentencing, Hoch asked the court about a note that the jury sent during its deliberations, asking for further instructions on an “inadvertent assault.” Hoch said that he was kept in the holding cell and not taken into the courtroom. He heard that the court declined to give further instruction, and wanted to know what happened. The judge replied that, to the best of his recollection, the jurors were told to refer to their notes, to the instructions that had been provided, and to the testimony. He told them to use their judgment to work through the evidence. The judge said that he did not keep notes of this and it does not appear to have been transcribed. The judge then imposed sentence. Hoch appealed to the Court of Appeals, raising several issues. In a split unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed his convictions. It found that the trial court reversibly erred by failing to have Hoch and his counsel present when reinstructing the jury. One judge dissented on grounds that the trial judge did not really “reinstruct” the jury because he gave it no further instructions than what it had already been told. The prosecutor appeals.
Top of Page
|
