People v. Stevenson
331 N.W.2d 143 · Michigan Supreme Court · 1982
Facts
On December 15, 1976, Ross Stevenson attempted an armed robbery at the Registrar's Office of Aquinas College. During the robbery, the victim tried to prevent the crime by jumping on Stevenson, leading to a struggle where two shots were fired, striking the victim in the abdomen. Stevenson escaped without completing the robbery. Two days later, Stevenson was arrested and charged with armed assault with intent to rob and assault with intent to murder. He entered a plea bargain, pleading guilty to assault with intent to rob, and the assault with intent to murder charge was dismissed. On December 19, 1977, 369 days after the shooting, the victim died from infection and hemorrhage resulting from the gunshot wound.
Procedural history
After the victim died, a complaint and warrant for first-degree felony murder were issued against the defendant. The district judge granted the defendant's motion to quash the complaint and warrant, ruling the prosecution was barred by the 'year and a day' rule. The prosecutor appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the dismissal, and then to the Court of Appeals, which also affirmed. This court granted leave to appeal.
Issue
1. Is the common-law 'year and a day' rule, which bars a murder conviction if the victim does not die within that timeframe after the assault, still valid in this state? 2. If abrogated, should the abrogation of the rule be applied retroactively to allow a murder prosecution in this case?
Holding
1. Yes, the 'year and a day' rule is part of the common law of this state, but it is hereby abrogated. 2. No, the abrogation of the rule will not be given retroactive effect.
Rule
The common-law 'year and a day' rule, which prevented a murder conviction if the victim died more than a year and a day after the injury, is abolished because it has outlived its usefulness. The original rationale, based on the inability of 13th-century medicine to prove causation after a prolonged period, is no longer valid due to advances in modern medical science. However, this abrogation will not be applied retroactively because doing so would violate ex post facto principles by disadvantaging the defendant, effectively increasing the potential punishment after the fact, and would be an erratic application of law.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.