By Ben Solis
Gongwer News Service
A new trial has been ordered for a man whose first-degree murder conviction involved testimony from two witnesses who later recanted their testimony but received no relief from the Oakland Circuit Court even after the prosecution and defense attorneys moved to vacate the conviction.
The Michigan Court of Appeals, in a published opinion written by Judge Brock Swartzle in People v. Bacall (COA Docket No. 369227), reversed the Oakland Circuit Court's order denying a joint request for consideration and remanded the case for a new trial. Judge Kristina Robinson Garrett and Judge Kirsten Frank Kelly signed the opinion.
Hayes Bacall was convicted of first-degree murder and carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony. Two witnesses in the case recanted their testimony, however, and the Oakland County Conviction Integrity Unit later found evidence of prosecutorial misconduct during the trial. There were also indications that that the jury struggled with its verdict.
That led the county's Conviction Integrity Unit to recommend that the conviction be vacated in exchange for a guilty plea to second-degree murder.
Bacall moved for relief from judgment, but the trial court denied the motion. Bacall and prosecutors both filed motions for reconsideration, with Bacall seeking relief from the initial conviction and the prosecution attempting to get a guilty plea on the downgraded conviction.
The trial court denied both motions for reconsideration, leading Bacall to appeal.
Swartzle wrote that Bacall was entitled to a new trial. He said the primary issue before the court was whether the new evidence made a different result possible. The panel concluded that trial court was required to consider all evidence that would be admitted at a new trial to see if a different result was probable.
"The trial court did not make clear in its opinion that, once it had concluded that a reasonable juror could find (one of the witnesses') recantation credible, it must then consider the likely effect of both recantations on a reasonable juror," Swartzle wrote. "Moreover, the trial court did not address the recantation evidence within the context of the prosecutorial misconduct that occurred in (Bacall's) original trial."
Although the trial court specifically noted that appellate court had already addressed a self-defense issue in the case, Swartzle said it would have been appropriate for the trial court to consider improper remarks when determining whether the new testimony of the witnesses would make a different result probable on retrial.
"Taken together, a different result on retrial is probable, and the trial court abused its discretion in concluding otherwise," Swartzle wrote. "Although the court appreciates the prosecutor's position (in asking for an exchange of convictions), the proper remedy is a remand for a new trial."
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://www.legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
