Appeals court agrees ex-GRPD officer should stand trial in Patrick Lyoya’s death
GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD) — The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled there is enough evidence to send a former Grand Rapids police officer to trial for murder, agreeing that it is for a jury to decide whether Christopher Schurr was acting in self-defense when he shot and killed Patrick Lyoya.
In a 2-1 ruling handed down Thursday morning, the Michigan Appeals Court affirmed a lower court’s decision to bind Schurr over to trial for second-degree murder.
“We agree that there is at least sufficient evidence presented at the preliminary examination to establish probable cause that defendant’s actions did not satisfy the standards for use of deadly force in self-defense,” the 25-page decision concluded.
Inside woodtv.com: The Patrick Lyoya case
The decision brings an end to months of legal limbo: Schurr’s case had been at a standstill since the Michigan Court of Appeals heard arguments on his appeal in September.
Schurr’s defense team cited two doctrines in arguing that common law gives officers the right to use deadly force to arrest a fleeing felon. The appeals court rejected that idea:
“Defendant’s argument on its face would suggest that whenever a police officer is met with force in making an arrest, the officer is always justified in using force, including deadly force, in order effectuate an arrest. We reject this blanket rule, concluding that use-of-force in making an arrest is more nuanced than defendant’s brief suggests,” the court’s majority ruling from Judges Colleen O’Brien and Kathleen Feeney read in part.
Prosecutors say the law requires the use of reasonable force. The appeals court agreed, pointing to previous appeals and Michigan Supreme Court rulings that said the use of deadly force must be necessary and reasonable. It also referenced a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that “the use of deadly force to prevent escape was constitutionally unreasonable when applied to all felonies.”
The appeals court said Schurr’s team also failed to show that the district court judge who sent his case on to trial did not properly apply self-defense law.
“On appeal, defendant argues extensively about the standard that he would like to see adopted in Michigan for evaluating whether a police officer’s decision to shoot and kill a person was done in self-defense,” the Thursday ruling read in part. “Nevertheless, the fact remains that our Supreme Court settled that matter in (1979 case People v.) Doss. The Court specifically stated that when using deadly force, ‘like the private citizen, the police officer who claims self-defense must have reasonably believed himself to have been in great danger and that his response was necessary to save himself therefrom.'”
The court didn’t deny that Schurr had a reasonable self-defense case, but it also said that a reasonable jury could also conclude that his actions were not justified, and that the district judge acknowledged that.
“The district court did not err when it determined that there was evidence presented at the preliminary examination that both supported and refuted defendant’s claim that he shot Lyoya in self-defense,” the ruling read in part. “The district court properly concluded that it was for the jury to resolve any conflicts in the evidence.”
DISSENT CENTERS ON TASER
No one disputes that Schurr shot and killed Lyoya, 26, on April 4, 2022, during a traffic stop in Grand Rapids. Video from the traffic stop shows Lyoya run away from Schurr and the two struggle over Schurr’s Taser. Ultimately, Schurr, who was on top of Lyoya trying to hold him down, shot him in the back of the head.
How Patrick Lyoya’s death changed GRPD
Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Brock Swartzle dissented with his two colleagues, and his argument came down to the Taser. It had already been fired twice by the time Lyoya was shot, but evidence was presented in court that it could have still been used in “drive stun” mode.
“Defendant was trained in the use of the Taser and its drive stun mode, but there was no evidence that Lyoya attempted to use the Taser against defendant either as a Taser or as a drive stun device,” the majority ruling read. “Furthermore, no precedent exists in Michigan to find that possession of a twice-fired Taser, with drive stun capabilities, is a dangerous weapon per se…”
In his dissent, Swartzle said this case should have been the basis for creating that precedent.
“(M)y colleagues on appeal fail to appreciate the inherent dangerous nature of this weapon,” he wrote. “(T)this court now has the opportunity to clarify the law, announce the proper precedent, and remand for the district court to reevaluate the evidence through the corrected, updated legal lens.”
“But instead, by agreeing with the prosecutor that the jury should decide, as a matter of fact, whether a Taser in drive-stun mode could be a dangerous weapon, the majority necessarily finds, as a matter of law, that the instrumentality is not a per se dangerous weapon,” Swartzle continued. “I cannot escape the conclusion that a weapon specifically designed to inflict extreme physical pain and plainly capable of temporary and permanent physical injury should be considered per se dangerous by courts of this state.”
APPEAL TO STATE SUPREME COURT POSSIBLE
Schurr was charged with second-degree murder in June 2022 and fired from the police department. In October 2022, the district court judge sent Schurr’s case on to trial. The trial was initially scheduled for March 2023, but the appeal pushed that to October of last year and then left the date up in the air.
Expert: Delays in trial for Patrick Lyoya’s death ‘normal’
In a Thursday statement, Kent County Prosecutor Chris Becker praised the appeals court’s ruling, but cautioned that the case is still likely to drag on. He expects the defense to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court — it has 56 days to do so.
“I am very pleased with the decision handed down today by the Court of Appeals. They recognized this case should move forward and we were justified under Michigan law in filing the charges we did.
“Nevertheless, it is important to caution everyone that this does not imply the case will go to trial anytime soon. The defense has the option to appeal this decision to the Michigan Supreme Court, which we fully expect they will do. They will have 56 days in which to make that appeal. After they file, we would have an opportunity to respond to their arguments, and this process will take additional time. It will then be up to the Supreme Court to decide whether to hear the appeal. In short, we anticipate a further delay in any trial proceedings.
“We appreciate the patience of the Lyoya family through all of this. This has been a long road and they have been very understanding through a difficult time for their family. We must let the appeals process continue to ensure we are protecting their rights as well as those of the defendant.”
Kent County Prosecutor Chris Becker
Schurr’s attorney, Matthew Borgula, said in his own statement that the defense team is considering an appeal.
“We have reviewed the Appellate Court’s 2-1 opinion affirming the Circuit Court’s bindover order. We respectfully disagree with the majority opinion that there was sufficient evidence to bind the case over for trial, given that it is undisputed that Mr. Lyoya had disarmed Officer Schurr of his taser, which at least one of the judges held was a dangerous weapon as a matter of law. We are considering our options going forward and may seek leave to appeal the decision to a higher court.”
Attorney Matthew Borgula
Ven Johnson, the attorney representing the Lyoya family in its civil lawsuit against Schurr, said the family has been discouraged by the delays in the case and that another appeal would compound that.
“The Lyoya family remains distraught about the cold-blooded killing of their son, and any of these delays adds more insult to injury, as it would with any parent, any family member of someone wrongfully murdered,” Johnson told reporters in a short virtual news conference Tuesday afternoon. “So obviously, they would be extremely upset.”
Cle Jackson, the president of the Greater Grand Rapids NAACP, called the appeals court ruing an important step forward but also said he hopes the case will now move more quickly to trial.
“Patrick, the Lyoya family needs to have their day in court. In that, this is something a jury has to and must decide,” Jackson said. “We are excited that the appellate court made an opinion that this needs to move forward with a trial. I think the prosecutor has been thorough in finding probable cause and rendering charges.”
Patrick Lyoya’s dad at rally: ‘Let’s fight for justice’
Jackson said community interest in the case has not waivered in the nearly two years since Lyoya’s death and months since the appellate court hearing. He said the NAACP often gets questions about it.
“I hope that if it does go to the Michigan Supreme Court, that they will move very quickly and swiftly. We have to remember, also, how long it has taken for the appellate court to decide. They heard oral arguments in September and now we are almost in February. I’m hopeful the judicial system will move quicker,” Jackson said.
He said he understands the legal process takes time, but he believes Schurr’s defense team’s strategy has been to keep him out of jail for as long as possible.
News 8 has reached out to the Fraternal Order of Police and other unions seeking comment but did not immediately hear back.
CIVIL LAWSUIT ONGOING
Lyoya’s family has filed a federal civil lawsuit, alleging Schurr violated Lyoya’s Fourth Amendment protections against excessive force and of gross negligence and willful and wanton misconduct under state law.
Lyoya attorneys: 2 experts say GRPD officer deviated from training
Debate over whether the city of Grand Rapids should be added back to the civil suit is expected to go before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Lyoya family’s attorney argues the city fostered a culture within the Grand Rapids Police Department that led to the shooting, but the city says there’s no evidence to prove that, pointing out the plaintiffs have not demonstrated how findings about racial disparities in traffic stops nor raw data on use of force investigations caused the shooting.
“There are no facts pled to explain how or why an alleged ‘environment of targeting minorities’ for traffic stops caused Officer Schurr to use legal force under the facts of this encounter,” the city’s attorneys wrote in part in an Oct. 18 federal court filing.
“These conclusory, unsupported, speculative labels do not address lethal force, or the training officers receive regarding the use of lethal force. They do not identify a constitutional defect in the training program related to the use of lethal force or a causal connection between training and Officer Schurr’s alleged use of lethal force here,” the filing continues. “The unfounded allegation that minorities are targeted in traffic stops has no logical nexus to the use of lethal force following a prolonged physical struggle with active resistance as has occurred in this case. This alleged custom of racial discrimination is entirely disconnected from the constitutional violation alleged herein, and the acts and circumstances at issue in this case.”
The city also pointed out the civil lawsuit does not allege a Fourteenth Amendment violation of Lyoya’s right to equal protection.
—News 8’s John Hogan, Byron Tollefson and Michael Oszust contributed to this report.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to WOODTV.com.
