Background
On November 30, 2022, Asante Wright shot his fiancée Patricia Fowler in the head while she sat in her vehicle. Wright’s stated account to police was that he was in a shootout with occupants of another vehicle and that Fowler was accidentally shot when she was in his line of fire. He admitted firing his gun “recklessly” toward the other vehicle knowing Fowler was present. After the shooting, Wright did not seek medical aid for Fowler. Instead, he enlisted friends to help him cover up the crime: moving her body to the trunk, destroying her cell phone, and traveling to Detroit to burn her body and vehicle.
Two accomplices testified pursuant to plea agreements. One stated that Wright told him he shot Fowler because she had been texting another man. Another stated that Wright threatened him, saying “[I]f I kill my girl, I’ll kill you,” to secure his help disposing of the body. When initially interviewed by police, Wright denied involvement entirely. In subsequent interviews, he admitted to moving the body and burning the vehicle but maintained that Fowler died in a shootout with another vehicle.
The trial court found Wright guilty of second-degree murder and felony-firearm after a bench trial. The court concluded the evidence precluded a first-degree murder conviction because the destruction of evidence prevented certainty about exactly what occurred inside the vehicle.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding that the trial court’s findings were sufficient to establish the malice element of second-degree murder. Although the trial court did not expressly state that Wright acted with malice, its findings that Wright had murdered Fowler and covered up the crime made clear that it rejected Wright’s accidental-shooting theory and found he acted with the requisite intent to kill or cause great bodily harm.
The court held that there was sufficient evidence to establish malice even accepting Wright’s version of events. Wright admitted firing his gun toward another vehicle while knowing his fiancée was in his line of fire. The act of shooting indiscriminately toward an occupied vehicle while his passenger was positioned to be struck demonstrates willful and wanton disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of such behavior would cause death or great bodily harm. This satisfies the malice element for second-degree murder. The court rejected Wright’s shootout theory as unsubstantiated and noted that it was first mentioned more than a year after the shooting.
The court applied the doctrine of transferred intent, holding that even if Wright intended to kill someone in the other vehicle but accidentally killed Fowler instead, his intent to kill transfers to the actual victim. The prosecution is not required to prove Wright intended to harm Fowler specifically—only that he acted with intent to kill or in obvious disregard of life-endangering consequences.
Key Takeaways
- Malice for second-degree murder can be established through circumstantial evidence, including motive (jealousy over another man), consciousness of guilt (cover-up conduct), and the reckless use of a deadly weapon in obvious disregard of others’ lives.
- A defendant who fires a weapon toward an occupied vehicle while knowing an innocent person is in the line of fire demonstrates the willful and wanton disregard required for malice, even if the defendant claims the shooting was defensive or accidental.
- The doctrine of transferred intent applies in Michigan: if a defendant intends to kill one person but kills another, the intent transfers to the actual victim, supporting a murder conviction.
- Trial courts in bench trials need not make explicit findings on every element of a crime; appellate courts will affirm where it is manifest the trial court understood the issues, resolved factual disputes, and correctly applied the law.
Why It Matters
This opinion reinforces Michigan’s approach to malice in second-degree murder cases, particularly in scenarios involving reckless gunfire. The court clarifies that a defendant cannot avoid a murder conviction by claiming the wrong person was shot or that the shooting occurred during a chaotic confrontation. The doctrine of transferred intent, combined with the definition of malice as including “wanton and willful disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of [the defendant’s] behavior is to cause death or great bodily harm,” creates a broad basis for murder liability when a defendant fires a weapon with knowledge of nearby occupants.
The decision also illustrates how post-crime conduct—evidence destruction, false statements, enlisting accomplices, and the nature of the cover-up—contributes to the inference of intent. While Wright’s claim that the shooting was accidental during a shootout could not be corroborated and was rejected as a late-emerging story, the court emphasized that malice was established regardless, based on Wright’s own admissions about firing recklessly while his fiancée was in the line of fire. This makes the opinion significant for defendants facing murder charges in situations where the exact sequence of events is disputed.