Background
Darryon Bechtel accompanied Steffonne Whitley and Amber Cunningham to a Kalamazoo park where Clint Bernardo, Laquisha Brown, and their children were gathered. After the three approached the family and an altercation began, Bechtel chased Bernardo while carrying a gun and fired one shot. No one was injured.
Bechtel told police that he had fired a warning shot, but Bernardo testified that Bechtel aimed and fired toward him. A nearby witness saw an aimed gun and its muzzle flash, and surveillance footage showed more than a dozen people scattering after the shot. A jury convicted Bechtel of assault with intent to murder and felony-firearm. The trial court imposed 9 to 30 years for the assault conviction and a two-year term for felony-firearm.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Bechtel intended to kill Bernardo. Viewed in the prosecution’s favor, the evidence showed that Bechtel arrived at the park, immediately approached the playground, pursued an unarmed Bernardo with a gun, aimed toward him, and fired. The jury was entitled to reject Bechtel’s claim that he merely fired into the air as a warning.
The court also rejected Bechtel’s claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to request instructions on felonious assault and intentionally discharging a firearm without malice. Those crimes require use of a dangerous weapon or firearm and therefore are not necessarily included lesser offenses of assault with intent to murder, which does not require a weapon. The record also did not support the requested cognate-offense instructions, and counsel reasonably could pursue an all-or-nothing strategy focused on disproving intent to kill.
Finally, the court upheld the sentence as proportionate. Bechtel’s nine-year minimum was at the bottom of the applicable 108-to-180-month guidelines range and was therefore presumptively proportionate. His minimal criminal history did not constitute an unusual circumstance overcoming that presumption, particularly given the trial court’s reliance on deterrence, punishment, and the dangerous conduct in a crowded public park.
Key Takeaways
- Intent to kill may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including chasing an unarmed victim, aiming a firearm, and firing toward the victim.
- Counsel was not ineffective for omitting instructions on offenses that were not necessarily included lesser offenses and were unsupported by the record.
- A sentence at the bottom of a properly calculated guidelines range remained presumptively proportionate absent unusual circumstances.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the deference appellate courts give juries when intent depends on competing testimony and video evidence. A defendant’s characterization of a gunshot as a warning does not require reversal when the surrounding conduct permits a rational inference of intent to kill.
It also reinforces that Michigan defendants cannot obtain instructions on cognate lesser offenses merely because those offenses carry lower penalties. For sentencing challenges, a minimal record alone may not overcome the presumption that a within-guidelines sentence is proportionate.