People v. Aiyash
Michigan Court of Appeals
2024 WL 4293329 (2024)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
In the early hours of the morning, Samuel McCray entered the gas station where Al-Hassan Walid Aiyash (defendant) worked as a gas-station attendant. McCray attempted to purchase approximately four dollars’ worth of snacks, but his card was declined. When McCray threatened to kill Aiyash and attempted to leave the station with the snacks, Aiyash remotely locked the doors, trapping McCray in the station with Aiyash and three patrons. Aiyash, who was standing behind bulletproof glass and was unaware that McCray was armed, verbally taunted McCray for several minutes. During that time, the patrons, who remained standing by McCray, begged Aiyash to unlock the door and let McCray leave. One of the patrons also tried to talk to McCray. Eventually, Aiyash unlocked the door. However, McCray, who felt he had been insulted by one of the patrons, started shooting, hitting all three patrons and killing one, Gregory Kelly. The state sought to hold Aiyash criminally liable for Kelly’s death, charging Aiyash with involuntary manslaughter. Aiyash argued that he was not liable because his conduct was not the proximate cause of Kelly’s death. The district court found that there was sufficient evidence of causation to proceed to trial, and the circuit court affirmed. Aiyash appealed that decision.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Brien, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
