Macomb County judge frees woman pending appeal for assaulting cops

**Macomb Daily staff photo by David N. Posavetz** Caroline Hocking-Sullivan, right, is hugged by her brother-in-law as her other family members hug each other Wednesday in Macomb County Circuit Court in Mount Clemens after Hocking-Sullivan was freed despite facing four years in prison.
**Macomb Daily staff photo by David N. Posavetz** Hocking-Sullivan is hugged by supporters.

In a rare courtroom move, a Macomb County judge freed a woman who could have been sentenced to 14 years or more for assaulting Sterling Heights police officers.

Caroline Hocking-Sullivan, who was shot by a police officer during the incident, was released Wednesday "on bond pending appeal" for convictions of one count of assault with intent to commit murder and three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon.

The convictions followed a jury trial in Macomb County Circuit court in Mount Clemens.

The jury determined that Hocking-Sullivan, 49, in May 2011 rose from a living room couch and charged with a knife at police officer Maureen Merpi and three other officers who had entered the house on a call for a potential overdose and suicidal person. Merpi shot Hocking-Sullivan in the breast, and another officer, Margaret Wemple, shot her with a Taser.

Judge Mary Chrzanowski granted attorney Timothy Barkovic's request to release her pending an appeal due to a legal issue in the case and Hocking-Sullivan's lack of danger to society and likelihood she will show up for proceedings.

"The defendant has proven ... she is not a threat to anyone else in society," Chrzanowski said. "The defendant will remain with her sister" in Shelby Township.

The decision spawned hugs and tears of joy among a dozen of Hocking-Sullivan's family members and relatives, including her sister and three daughters.

"I'm just numb right now," Hocking-Sullivan said minutes after she was allowed to go free. "I was expecting to be sentenced today. I have a second chance at life."

The judge moments earlier departed far below the sentencing guideline range of about 14 to 25 years by sentencing her to four to 20 years.

She said the range "does not come close to fitting the crime," and the incident was "totally out of character" for the defendant. She noted Hocking-Sullivan was "in the privacy of her own home," has suffered from psychological issues due to a brutal rape in 1986 and was under the influence of prescription drugs and alcohol when police officers surprised her. Her sister had called police.

The sentence "disappointed" assistant Macomb prosecutor Steven Fox, who tried the case. All of the police officers involved in the incident attended the sentencing and were disappointed, he said.

"They're not happy when a person who tried to kill an officer in uniform was not held to the same standard of someone who tried to kill anyone else," he said.

Fox in court vehemely opposed both the lower sentence and release on appeal. Fox suggested a 15- to 30-year sentence.

"She tried to kill a police officer," Fox loudly told the judge. "She should go to prison.

"The defendant has been out for two years. It's time for her to start serving her sentence."

Fox afterward said prosecutors will appeal the sentence, and Hocking-Sullivan could end up with a longer term.

Merpi and Wemple through Fox said they feared for their lives and the incident has traumatized them.

The judge ruled in favor of the prosecution in denying Barkovic's requests for a new trial and mistrial.

A potential legal error occurred during the trial in which jurors heard nine snippets of an audio recording of Hocking-Sullivan's comments to a detective shortly after the incident while in the hospital for treatment of her bullet wound. She admitted to having two knives and made other statements that potentially conflicted with her live testimony.

Barkovic said the recordings should not have been allowed because Hocking-Sullivan was in no condition to waive her right to a lawyer or remain silent because she was under the influence of drugs and alcohol.

Chrzanowski at the time called it an error and provided a "curative instruction" by telling jurors to ignore the statements.

She said Wednesday that Barkovic before the trial should have requested the issue to be subject of an evidentiary hearing on Hocking-Sullivan's competency at the time.

In lieu of that, Barkovic should have asked for a mistrial at the time of the occurrence, she said.

The judge also shot down Barkovic's requests based on his admission that he was "ineffective" as a lawyer. The judge called his decisions "trial strategy."

Fox, meanwhile, insists no legal error occurred. He said Barkovic knew he planned to use the recording to attempt to impeach her testimony.

Barkovic said he expects Hocking-Sullivan's appellate attorney to seek a new trial on that issue.

Join the Conversation