People v. Cole

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CARLA KAY COLE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 350891

Court of Appeals of Michigan

August 26, 2021

UNPUBLISHED

Washtenaw Circuit Court LC No. 18-000830-FC

Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Stephens and Rick, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Carla Kay Cole, appeals by right her jury conviction of first-degree murder (premeditated), MCL 750.316(1)(a); and assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder (AWIGBH), MCL 750.84.^[1] The trial court sentenced defendant to serve life imprisonment for first-degree murder and 38 months to 10 years' imprisonment for AWIGBH. Defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the premeditation element required for first-degree murder. Defendant further argues that she was denied effective assistance of counsel when her trial counsel failed to present a self-defense argument, denied defendant her constitutional right to testify, and failed to obtain an expert witness on post-traumatic stress disorder. We affirm.

This appeal arises from the stabbing death of the victim, Crystal Ludwig, that occurred shortly after midnight on June 19 2018. Louis Burbanks, the victim's boyfriend, was a long-time friend of Dana Barnes, who was defendant's boyfriend. Barnes contacted the victim and invited him out for drinks. Barnes and defendant picked up Burbanks and the victim from their hotel. Various conflicts took place over the evening between Burbanks and the victim, and between defendant and the victim. After leaving the bar, a conflict ensued in defendant's car, resulting in the victim being stabbed several times. The victim died from the injuries she sustained in the stabbing.

I. SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE

Defendant's first-degree murder conviction was supported by sufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation.

Challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence are reviewed de novo. People v Meissner, 294 Mich.App. 438, 452; 812 N.W.2d 37 (2011). "We view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime to have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. "The standard of review is deferential: a reviewing court is required to draw all reasonable inferences and make credibility choices in support of the jury verdict." People v Nowack, 462 Mich. 392, 400; 614 N.W.2d 78 (2000).

As a threshold matter, defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying her motion for a directed verdict on the first-degree murder charge because the prosecution did not present sufficient evidence to support premeditation and deliberation.

A trial court assesses the merits of a directed verdict motion through consideration of the evidence presented by the prosecution in a light most favorable to the prosecution, to determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the elements of a crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. [People v Jolly, 442 Mich. 458, 466; 502 N.W.2d 177 (1993).]

The standards for evaluating the evidence in a motion for a directed verdict are the same as those involving a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. See People v Hampton, 407 Mich. 354, 366-368; 285 N.W.2d 284 (1979).

Due process requires a criminal conviction to be supported by sufficient evidence, and precludes irrational jury verdicts. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich. 508, 514; 489 N.W.2d 748 (1992), see also Jackson v Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315; 99 S.Ct. 2781; 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979).

[W]hen determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented to sustain a conviction, a court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. [Wolfe, 440 Mich. at 515.]

Appellate courts must not interfere with the role of the jury. Id. at 514." 'Juries, not appellate courts, see and hear witnesses and are in a much better position to decide the weight and credibility to be given to their testimony.'" Id. at 514-515, quoting People v Palmer, 392 Mich. 370, 375-376; 220 N.W.2d 393 (1974). "The scope of review is the same whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial." Nowack, 462 Mich. at 400. "Circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from that evidence can constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of a crime." People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750, 757; 597 N.W.2d 130 (1999) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

First-degree murder is "[m]urder perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait, or any other willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing." MCL 750.316(1)(a). "The elements of first- degree murder are (1) the intentional killing of a human (2) with premeditation and deliberation." People v Bennett, 290 Mich.App. 465, 472; 802 N.W.2d 627 (2010). "Premeditation and deliberation may be established by an interval of time between the initial homicidal thought and the ultimate action, which would allow a reasonable person time to subject the nature of his or her action to a 'second look.'" People v Oros, 502 Mich. 229, 242; 917 N.W.2d 559 (2018).

The elements of premeditation and deliberation may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the killing. Premeditation may be established through evidence of the following factors: (1) the prior relationship of the parties; (2) the defendant's actions before the killing; (3) the circumstances of the killing itself; and (4) the defendant's conduct after the homicide. [People v Anderson, 209 Mich.App. 527, 537; 531 N.W.2d 780 (1995), distinguished on other grounds, People v Elliott, 295 Mich.App. 623; 815 N.W.2d 575 (2012).]

Application of the Anderson factors and the second-look requirement to these facts support an inference that the killing was premediated and deliberate.

Although the defendant and the victim did not know each other before the night of the killing, the evidence indicates that defendant developed significant animosity toward the victim during their brief time together. Defendant accused the victim of making sexual advances toward her boyfriend. These accusations on the part of defendant are supported only by Burbanks's testimony. However, both Burbanks and Barnes testified that some kind of altercation took place in defendant's car between defendant and the victim as they were leaving the bar. This altercation is also seen on the surveillance video. Therefore, although defendant and the victim had no prior relationship before the night of the killing, defendant's actions before the killing are marked by increasing hostility toward the victim.

The evidence related to the circumstances of the killing establishes that defendant stopped the car after the victim pulled her hair. It is unclear how the altercation between the two moved from a verbal confrontation to a physical one, but the evidence supports that this did happen. Defendant stopped the car, and opened the rear driver's-side door of the car. Evidence was admitted that indicates that before exiting from the driver's seat, defendant pulled a knife from her purse: Barnes testified that defendant had previously told him that she carried a knife in her purse for protection. When defendant opened the rear driver's-side door, she cut Burbanks on the hand and stabbed the victim in the leg. Defendant then returned to the driver's seat momentarily, and then proceeded around to the passenger side of the car, and stabbed the victim one more time, this time in the chest. This was a fatal wound.

After stabbing the victim this final time, defendant returned to the driver's seat of her vehicle. Barnes returned to the passenger seat, and the two drove off, leaving the victim with Burbanks. Defendant did not call 911, or otherwise alert any authorities about what had happened. She returned home and engaged in an argument with Barnes over what had happened, eventually telling him to pack his belongings and leave her house. Defendant told Barnes, "I think I probably stabbed her."

Defendant was openly hostile toward the victim, leading to an escalating physical confrontation. During the ensuing melee, defendant paused in the driver's seat before getting out again to fatally stab the victim. This pause gave defendant an opportunity to take a second look, regardless of how long the pause lasted. See Oros, 502 Mich. at 242. This was the critical event. Even though the surveillance video shows that this time period was five seconds, it allowed defendant the opportunity to take a second look. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence to support an inference that defendant's killing of the victim was premeditated and deliberate. See Oros, 502 Mich. at 242; Anderson, 209 Mich.App. at 537. How to weigh the witnesses' testimonies and the admitted evidence was a matter for the jury to decide. See Palmer, 392 Mich. at 375-376.

In conclusion, because there was sufficient evidence that defendant's killing of the victim was premeditated and deliberate, the elements of first-degree murder were supported by sufficient evidence to both justify denying defendant's motion for a directed verdict and to support the jury's finding that defendant was guilty of first-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

II. INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

Defendant raises three separate arguments, claiming that defense counsel failed to provide effective representation. We disagree with all three arguments, as discussed in detail below.

"The question whether defense counsel performed ineffectively is a mixed question of law and fact; this Court reviews for clear error the trial court's findings of fact and reviews de novo questions of constitutional law." People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich....