Background
Maurice Rushton was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder after witnesses saw him chase the victim through a Pontiac park while holding a knife. Afterward, Rushton reportedly indicated that he had stabbed the victim because of theft and because the victim was not a true Muslim. The victim was found bleeding from a chest wound and later died.
Police arrested Rushton shortly after the stabbing. A search of his home uncovered knives, cleaning supplies and a bucket of water smelling strongly of bleach. Investigators also found possible blood on Rushton’s shoes, and DNA testing strongly supported the conclusion that the victim contributed DNA recovered from the sole of one shoe. Sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 35 to 70 years in prison, Rushton challenged the omission of a voluntary-manslaughter instruction, the scoring of two offense variables and the admission of a witness’s prior testimony and police interview.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that Rushton waived review of the omitted voluntary-manslaughter instruction because defense counsel expressly stated that he was satisfied with the jury instructions. The court also noted that the defense theory was that Rushton did not commit the killing, and no manslaughter instruction had been requested.
The court upheld the 15-point score for Offense Variable 5 because statements from the victim’s mother and adoptive mother demonstrated serious psychological injury that could require professional treatment. It upheld the 10-point score for Offense Variable 19 because evidence supported findings that Rushton tried to impede the investigation and intimidate witnesses, including by cleaning with bleach, falsely claiming he had remained home and could not run, and telling a witness that he knew what she had reported and what car she drove.
The court further held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting SB’s preliminary-examination testimony and recorded police interview under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing rule. The evidence supported findings that Rushton or his associates engaged in wrongdoing intended to prevent SB from testifying and that the conduct caused her unavailability. Even if admission had been erroneous, the court held that any error was harmless, including beyond a reasonable doubt, given the other eyewitness, forensic and consciousness-of-guilt evidence.
Key Takeaways
- Expressly approving jury instructions waives appellate review of an omitted lesser-included-offense instruction.
- Detailed family statements describing devastating emotional harm may support 15 points under OV 5 even when no family member has sought professional treatment.
- Post-offense evidence destruction, false statements to police and witness intimidation may support OV 19 scoring, while intimidation that causes a witness’s unavailability may permit prior statements under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the procedural consequences of approving jury instructions and the breadth of Michigan’s sentencing provisions governing psychological injury and interference with justice. It also shows that conduct directed at a witness may support both an enhanced offense-variable score and admission of otherwise-excludable hearsay.
The court’s alternative harmless-error analysis underscores that a forfeiture-by-wrongdoing dispute may not warrant reversal when independent eyewitness accounts, forensic evidence, false exculpatory statements and evidence of attempted cleanup strongly establish guilt.