PEOPLE OF MI V DAVID T BOOTH
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
February 6, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 217295
Recorder’s Court
LC No. 96-007454
DAVID T. BOOTH,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Whitbeck and J. L. Martlew*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant David Booth appeals as of right from his convictions of first-degree (felony)
murder,1 assault with intent to commit murder,2 first-degree home invasion,3 and possession of a
firearm during the commission of a felony,4 entered after a bench trial. We affirm. We decide
this appeal without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
I. Basic Facts And Procedural History
At trial, the evidence showed that Booth broke into the apartment of a woman to whom
he was attracted, shot her in the arm, shot and killed her boyfriend, and ransacked the residence.
Booth concealed the weapon in a food container and placed the container in a dumpster. After
being arrested, Booth made incriminating statements and revealed the location of the weapon.
The trial court found Booth guilty as charged. At sentencing, the trial court stated that while it
was aware that Booth had had psychological problems for which he had been treated, it was of
the opinion that he had the requisite state of mind to be found guilty of the charged offenses.
1
MCL 750.316; MSA 28.548.
2
MCL 750.83; MSA 28.278.
3
MCL 750.110a(2); MSA 28.305(a)(2).
4
MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2).
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
II. Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel
A. Legal Standard
Booth argues that his trial counsel was ineffective. To establish ineffective assistance of
counsel, a defendant must show that defense counsel’s performance fell below an objective
standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms, and that counsel’s performance
resulted in prejudice.5 To demonstrate prejudice, a defendant must show a reasonable probability
that but for counsel’s error, the result of the proceedings would have been different, making the
proceeding unfair or unreliable.6 Counsel is presumed to have afforded effective assistance, and
a defendant bears the burden of proving otherwise.7
B. Insanity Defense
Booth argues that his counsel was ineffective because he failed to present an insanity
defense. Legal insanity is an affirmative defense to a charged crime.8 A person is legally insane
if, as a result of mental illness, he lacks the substantial capacity to appreciate the nature and
quality or the wrongfulness of his conduct, or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the
law.9 Mental illness, in and of itself, does not constitute the defense of legal insanity.10
We note that when Booth broke into the apartment, he targeted and attacked only the
woman to whom he was attracted and her boyfriend. Booth did not harm other persons in the
apartment. Booth destroyed various items in the apartment, including a television set that he had
given to the woman. Booth made a conscious effort to conceal the weapon. When Booth was
arrested, he admitted his involvement and revealed the location of the weapon. We conclude that
Booth’s actions do not suggest that he did not understand the wrongfulness of his conduct, or that
he could not conform his conduct to the law. MCL 768.21a(1); MSA 28.1044(1)(1).
Further, we note that the record reveals that Booth was referred to the Recorder’s Court
Clinic for a competency examination. Nothing indicates that he was found to be incompetent to
stand trial. Under the circumstances, it is not reasonably likely that had a defense of insanity
been presented, the result of the proceedings would have been different; therefore, Booth has not
5
Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 694; 104 S Ct 2052; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984).
6
People v Toma, 462 Mich 281, 302-303; 613 NW2d 694 (2000); People v Poole, 218 Mich
App 702, 718; 555 NW2d 485 (1996).
7
People v Rockey, 237 Mich App 74, 76; 601 NW2d 887 (1999).
8
See, generally, People v Eason, 435 Mich 228, 242; 458 NW2d 17 (1990); MCL 768.21a; MSA
28.1044(1).
9
MCL 768.21a; MSA 28.1044(1).
10
People v Stephan, 241 Mich App 482, 489-492; ___ NW2d ___ (2000).
-2-
shown prejudice.11 Further, defense counsel’s decision to forego an insanity defense was trial
strategy, for which we will not substitute our judgment on appeal.12
Affirmed.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Jeffrey L. Martlew
11
Toma, supra; see also People v Newton (After Remand), 179 Mich App 484, 493; 446 NW2d
487 (1989).
12
People v Rice (On Remand), 235 Mich App 429, 445; 597 NW2d 843 (1999).
-3-
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.
