People v. Wilder

Citations: 780 N.W.2d 265; 485 Mich. 35Docket: Docket 137562

Court: Michigan Supreme Court; March 30, 2010; Michigan; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Michigan Supreme Court addressed whether third-degree home invasion (MCL 750.110a(4)) is a necessarily included lesser offense of first-degree home invasion (MCL 750.110a(2)). The Court concluded that third-degree home invasion is indeed a necessarily included lesser offense, as all elements required for a conviction of third-degree home invasion are encompassed within those needed for first-degree home invasion. Consequently, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals' ruling and reinstated the defendant Darrell Wilder's convictions and sentences.

The case arose after Wilder entered Denise Carter’s home without permission early on December 30, 2006. Carter recognized him and opened the door, but he proceeded to unplug her television, claiming it was unrelated to her. He displayed a gun when she protested. Wilder was charged as a third-offense habitual offender with first-degree home invasion and felony-firearm possession. The felon-in-possession charge was dismissed, and following a bench trial, he was convicted of third-degree home invasion and felony-firearm.

On appeal, Wilder argued that his conviction for third-degree home invasion violated due process, asserting it was a cognate offense rather than a necessarily included lesser offense of first-degree home invasion. The Court of Appeals agreed, stating that the distinctions between the motivations for the two offenses warranted this classification. However, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed this decision, reaffirming that the elements of third-degree home invasion are inherently included within the context of first-degree home invasion.

The prosecution sought permission to appeal regarding whether third-degree home invasion constitutes a necessarily included lesser offense of first-degree home invasion. The court granted leave to review this legal question de novo, along with the defendant's claim of a due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment, which is also evaluated de novo.

The central legal issue is whether third-degree home invasion qualifies as a lesser included offense of first-degree home invasion, which would allow for the reinstatement of the defendant’s convictions. Under MCL 768.32(1), a jury or judge may find a defendant guilty of a lesser degree of an offense if it is "inferior" to the charged offense. The term "inferior" does not imply a lesser penalty but rather refers to the absence of an element that distinguishes the greater offense from the lesser one. 

The court referenced the case People v Cornell, which clarified that a lesser offense is "necessarily included" in a greater offense when all elements of the lesser offense are contained within the greater offense. This is distinct from cognate offenses, which share elements but include additional ones that the defendant may not have been prepared to defend against. 

To resolve the current case, the court will analyze the home invasion statutes, specifically whether the elements of third-degree home invasion as defined in MCL 750.110a(4) are encompassed within those of first-degree home invasion as outlined in MCL 750.110a(2). The elements of first-degree home invasion require breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit a felony, larceny, or assault, or entering without permission with similar intent, especially under circumstances where the person is armed or another person is present in the dwelling.

MCL 750.110a(4) defines third-degree home invasion, which occurs when an individual either breaks and enters a dwelling or enters without permission with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, or commits a misdemeanor during such entry or exit. Additionally, it includes violations of protective orders related to probation, parole, or bail conditions during the entry or exit. 

The statute delineates the elements of both first-degree and third-degree home invasion. For first-degree, the elements include breaking and entering or unauthorized entry with intent to commit a felony, larceny, or assault, and being armed or having another person lawfully present. Third-degree invasion similarly involves unauthorized entry or breaking and entering but specifies intent to commit a misdemeanor or violations of protective orders.

The Court of Appeals ruled that third-degree home invasion cannot be a lesser included offense of first-degree home invasion due to the distinct alternative elements of the former. However, this ruling was criticized for not focusing on the specific elements relevant to the case at hand. It was argued that a precise evaluation of the statutory elements is necessary to determine if the lesser offense's elements are encompassed within the greater offense. If the elements of the lesser offense are indeed subsumed by the greater offense, it qualifies as a necessarily included lesser offense, regardless of whether all alternative elements of the lesser offense are covered.

To determine if the elements of third-degree home invasion constitute a lesser included offense of first-degree home invasion, an examination of both offenses is necessary. The defendant was charged with first-degree home invasion for unlawfully entering a home, stealing property, and displaying a firearm. He was convicted of third-degree home invasion, defined under MCL 750.110a(4)(a), for entering the home unlawfully and committing a misdemeanor (larceny). 

The elements of first-degree home invasion include: (1) unlawful entry into a dwelling, (2) committing larceny while present, and (3) being armed with a dangerous weapon. The elements for third-degree home invasion are: (1) unlawful entry and (2) committing a misdemeanor while present. Since the misdemeanor element in the lesser charge is inherently included in the larceny element of the greater charge, third-degree home invasion is established as a necessarily included lesser offense of first-degree home invasion.

Furthermore, the defendant’s due process rights were not violated. Due process mandates that a defendant be informed of all elements of the charged crime. Since all elements of third-degree home invasion are encompassed within those of first-degree home invasion, the defendant was adequately notified of the charges and the prosecution's burden of proof. Thus, his due process rights remain intact, affirming the conviction of the lesser offense.

The Supreme Court of Michigan has determined that third-degree home invasion, as defined under MCL 750.110a(4)(a), is a necessarily included lesser offense of first-degree home invasion under MCL 750.110a(2). The Court found that all elements necessary for a conviction of third-degree home invasion are contained within the elements required for first-degree home invasion. Additionally, it ruled that the defendant's due process rights were upheld, as he was adequately informed of the elements of the crime he needed to defend against. Consequently, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated the defendant’s convictions and sentences. Justice Corrigan concurred, emphasizing her agreement with the majority opinion while also expressing her dissenting views from a previous case regarding the interpretation of "inferior" offenses. Justice Cavanagh concurred in part, agreeing that the defendant's due process rights were not violated but dissenting from the majority's interpretation of statutory language regarding inferior offenses.