PEOPLE OF MI V ROBERT BROCK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
July 21, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
ROBERT BROCK,
No. 210722
Wayne Circuit Court
Criminal Division
LC No. 97-003614
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Collins and Owens, JJ.
MURPHY, P.J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the decision of the lead opinion to affirm defendant's convictions. I
would instead reverse the convictions on the ground that the conduct of the trial judge deprived
defendant of a fair trial.
Although defendant did not raise this issue on appeal, this Court is nevertheless empowered to
go beyond the issues raised and to address any issue which, in its opinion, justice requires be
considered and resolved. People v Cain, 238 Mich App 95, 127; 605 NW2d 28 (1999). In this
instance, the procedural posture of this case brought the issue to light. Defendant was convicted at the
conclusion of a joint jury trial which likewise resulted in the conviction of his alleged codefendant,
Dekovas Johnson. Although not consolidated for appellate consideration, the appeals in these
codefendants' cases were submitted together for consideration by this panel. Codefendant Johnson did
raise the issue of improper conduct on the part of the trial judge, and based on our conclusion that the
trial judge's interference with the trial pierced the veil of judicial impartiality, we reversed Johnson's
convictions. See People v Johnson, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, released
this same day (Docket No. 210699).
Contrary to the lead opinion, I find that notwithstanding the separable nature of the numerous
instances of improper judicial conduct, and their distinguishable impact vis-à-vis the two codefendants,
the pervasive interference of the trial judge tainted both convictions and compels reversal in this case to
avoid inconsistent results. See People v Hayden, 132 Mich App 273, 288-289 n 8; 348 NW2d 672
(1984).
I would reverse.
/s/ William B. Murphy
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
