PEOPLE OF MI V WEST SPRUILL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
February 21, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 274946
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2006-209771-FH
WEST SPRUILL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Donofrio and Servitto, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of felonious assault, MCL 750.82, and
sentenced as an habitual offender, third offense, MCL 769.11, to a prison term of two to eight
years. He appeals as of right. We affirm.
Defendant’s conviction arises from an incident in which he threw a chair at Randall
Estes, the supervisor of a case management team at Community Network Services, which
provided outpatient mental health services. Estes attempted to introduce defendant to his new
case manager, but he responded in an outburst of expletives. He grabbed a chair and feigned
throwing it before a security guard and an intake specialist restrained him. When they released
him, he picked up the chair again and threw it across a table. The chair hit the ceiling and caused
a fluorescent light bulb to break and fall to the floor. The chair struck Estes in his side and
damaged a wall. Defendant was also charged with assaulting Estes with a piece of broken glass,
but he was acquitted of that charge.
Defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because the
prosecution failed to prove that the chair was a dangerous weapon, i.e., capable of inflicting
serious injury, under the circumstances of this case.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case, this Court must view
the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of
fact could have found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
People v Johnson, 460 Mich 720, 723; 597 NW2d 73 (1999).
MCL 750.82 proscribes felonious assault, which is an assault “with a gun, revolver,
pistol, knife, iron bar, club, brass knuckles, or other dangerous weapon” committed without
intent to commit murder or to inflict great bodily harm less than murder. “The elements of
-1-
felonious assault are (1) an assault, (2) with a dangerous weapon, and (3) with the intent to injure
or place the victim in reasonable apprehension of an immediate battery.” People v Avant, 235
Mich App 499, 505; 597 NW2d 864 (1999). In People v Goolsby, 284 Mich 375, 378; 279 NW
867 (1938), the Court explained:
Some weapons carry their dangerous character because so designed and
are, when employed, per se, deadly, while other instrumentalities are not
dangerous weapons unless turned to such purpose. The test as to the latter is
whether the instrumentality was used as a weapon and, when so employed in an
assault, dangerous. The character of a dangerous weapon attaches by adoption
when the instrumentality is applied to use against another in furtherance of an
assault. When the purpose is evidenced by act, and the instrumentality is adapted
to accomplishment of the assault and capable of inflicting serious injury, then it
is, when so employed, a dangerous weapon.
The chair that defendant threw had metal legs, and was described as being “much heavier than a
folding chair.” It broke a light in the ceiling and put a hole in a wall. It left a bruise on Estes’s
hip. The evidence regarding the character of the chair and the manner in which it was thrown,
viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecution, was sufficient to enable the jury to find that
it was used as a dangerous weapon. People v Rivera, 120 Mich App 50, 55-56; 327 NW2d 386
(1982).
Defendant argues that the trial court erred when it admitted a photograph of Estes’s
bruise that the prosecution had not provided to defendant before trial. Defendant argues that the
trial court should have excluded the photograph as a sanction for the prosecution’s discovery
violation.
This Court reviews a trial court’s decision regarding the appropriate remedy for
noncompliance with a discovery order for an abuse of discretion. People v Davie, 225 Mich App
592, 597-598; 571 NW2d 229 (1997). “There is no general constitutional right to discovery in a
criminal case,” and due process requires only that the prosecution provide a defendant with
material, exculpatory evidence in its possession. People v Greenfield, 271 Mich App 442, 447 n
4; 722 NW2d 254 (2006) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
Assuming arguendo that the prosecution’s failure to provide a description of and an
opportunity to inspect the photograph violated MCR 6.201(A)(6), defendant was not entitled to
relief unless there was actual prejudice. Id., p 456 n 10, citing Davie, supra. Upon inquiry by
the trial court, defendant failed to articulate how he was prejudiced by the delay in learning of
the photograph. He asserted that the injury was “forged,” but did not explain how the delay
impinged his ability to challenge the authenticity of the injury. In the absence of a showing of
prejudice, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the photograph.
Finally, defendant argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by informing the
jury that defendant did not face years in prison if convicted.
Defendant did not preserve this issue for appellate review by objecting at trial to the
remarks challenged on appeal. Therefore, this Court reviews this issue pursuant to the plain
error test of People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). Defendant must
-2-
establish that an error occurred, that it was plain (i.e., clear or obvious), and that the error
affected his substantial rights, which generally requires a showing that it affected the outcome of
the trial court proceedings. Id., pp 763-764.
Defendant, who was representing himself, mentioned in his opening statement that he
was “facing many years in prison” and noted that there were people who “would love to see me
rot in a prison with child molesters, rapists, baby killers and murderers”. In his closing
argument, he argued that he did “not deserve to go to prison for a bunch of years”, and again
referred to “facing all these years”. In the prosecutor’s rebuttal argument, he stated:
Mr. Spruill not being a lawyer stands before you and continuously tells
you he’s going to prison for a lengthy period of time. Nothing is farther from the
truth. The defendant has been incarcerated for 10 months since this happened.
The minimum sentence he can receive is 10 months so don’t go back in the jury
room and decide this case because if you convict the defendant who you feel sorry
for, he’s going to prison for a lengthy period of time. The judge is going to tell
you that he is the person that would affix the penalty for what Mr. Spruill did on
that date.
The prosecution concedes on appeal that it was improper to mention the sentencing
guidelines range or speculate about defendant’s sentence. However, the statements were made in
response to defendant’s arguments and the trial court properly instructed the jury that the
possible penalty should not influence its verdict. Under these circumstances, any error did not
affect defendant’s substantial rights and appellate relief is not warranted. People v Singer, 174
Mich 361; 140 NW 522 (1913); People v Szczytko, 40 Mich App 161, 179-180; 198 NW2d 740
(1972), aff’d 390 Mich 278 (1973).
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Pat M. Donofrio
/s/ Deborah A. Servitto
-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.
