I’m Not a Carjacker – I was Only Helping an Insurance Fraud

Positing one of the most ridiculous defenses and ground for appeal, Dajuan D. Bowie (the “Defendant”) after he was convicted of car jacking and armed robbery, claimed he was not truly a criminal because he was fooled into believing that he was helping commit insurance fraud, forgetting that insurance fraud is also a felony.

In People of The State of Michigan v. Dajuan Deran Bowie, No. 347555, State of Michigan Court of Appeals (April 2, 2020) Defendant appealed his jury trial convictions of carjacking, armed robbery and unlawfully driving away an automobile (UDAA). Defendant was sentenced to 15 to 30 years’ imprisonment for carjacking, 15 to 30 years’ imprisonment for armed robbery, and 3 to 5 years’ imprisonment for UDAA. The trial court also ordered defendant to pay $2,034 in court costs.

BACKGROUND

 On August 26, 2017, Levander Lawson (Lawson) was leaving a liquor store located in Detroit, Michigan. After Lawson entered his vehicle, Nicholas Robinson (Robinson) entered through the passenger door, pointed a gun at Lawson, and instructed Lawson to give him the car keys. Defendant entered the backseat of the vehicle and instructed Lawson to lean toward the steering wheel and took Lawson’s wallet out of his back pocket. Robinson told Lawson to get out of the vehicle, and Lawson complied. After Robinson and defendant drove away in Lawson’s vehicle, Lawson went back in the liquor store and called the police. Lawson later identified Robinson and defendant in a photographic lineup, and they were arrested.

Prior to trial, the prosecution sought to introduce evidence of other-acts evidence. Specifically, the prosecution notified defendant that it intended to use evidence of defendant’s previous carjacking conviction. Defendant responded arguing that evidence of defendant’s previous conviction “would only be used to show the defendant propensity [sic] to carjack people,” and that this “evidence only serves to inflame the jury, confuse the issues, and make the defendant look like a bad man.”

Defendant testified that although he participated in the carjacking, he thought it was an agreed on insurance fraud, alleging that he was “duped into a carjacking” by Lawson and Robinson. Following this testimony, the assistant prosecutor examined defendant and inquired whether he pled guilty to carjacking in 2011, to which defendant denied committing the crime but asserted he pled guilty “out of fear.”

OPINION

 The Defendant’s conviction was properly affirmed. To argue that he should be excused from his armed robbery conviction because he was willing to – and thought he did – participate in an insurance fraud with the victim (whose cash he took while pointing a gun at the back of the victims head) was ridiculous and discounted by the jury as it reached its unanimous verdict.