People of Michigan v. Aldo R Quadrini
331223
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- On Oct. 10, 2014, Aldo Quadrini and his father went to the defendant’s (Quadrini’s) attorney’s office to confront him about a financial dispute; they refused to leave when told the attorney was unavailable.
- Macomb County deputies Parisek and Kato responded; they took Quadrini outside and attempted to de-escalate; deputies testified Quadrini was disorderly and was being led to a patrol car.
- Deputies testified Quadrini grabbed the patrol-car door latch and slammed the door into Deputy Parisek; defense witnesses (friend Stickney, father, and wife) testified officers pushed or forced Quadrini into the door and that Quadrini’s fused ankles/wrists make manipulating a latch difficult.
- Quadrini sought to have his treating physician testify by telephone about his physical limitations; the trial court denied the request under MCR 6.006(C)(2) because the prosecution did not consent to remote testimony at trial.
- Quadrini argued on appeal that (1) denial of telephone testimony deprived him of a fair trial, (2) trial counsel was ineffective for not securing the doctor’s in-person testimony, and (3) the court improperly limited his witnesses by suggesting he pare down his witness list.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed convictions for resisting/obstructing (MCL 750.81d) and disturbing the peace (MCL 750.170), rejecting these arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly denied telephone testimony under MCR 6.006(C)(2) | Prosecution withheld consent; rule requires both parties’ consent | Telephone testimony was necessary to prove medical incapacity; denial violated right to fair trial | Denial proper: MCR 6.006(C)(2) requires party consent; no abuse of discretion (People v Duenaz) |
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not presenting the doctor in person | N/A (prosecution) | Counsel’s failure deprived Quadrini of substantial defense showing physical incapacity to perform alleged conduct | Not ineffective: defense presented three witnesses describing same limitations; doctor’s testimony would have been cumulative (Strickland standard) |
| Whether the trial court improperly limited defendant’s right to present witnesses by suggesting paring down witness list | N/A | Suggestion to pare down amounted to limiting the right to present a defense | No violation: court did not order cuts; suggestion permissible and not coercive |
| Whether remand for Ginther hearing was required to further develop ineffective-assistance claim | N/A | Requested remand for evidentiary hearing | Denied: defendant did not file proper motion; record sufficient to decide claim |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Duenaz, 306 Mich. App. 85 (interpreting MCR 6.006(C)(2) to require both parties’ consent for remote testimony at trial)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishing two-prong ineffective-assistance standard)
- People v Dixon, 263 Mich. App. 393 (failure to call witnesses constitutes ineffective assistance only if it deprives defendant of a substantial defense)
- People v Chapo, 283 Mich. App. 360 (defining "substantial defense")
- People v Buie, 491 Mich. 294 (standard of review and trial-court discretion for remote testimony)
- People v Ginther, 390 Mich. 436 (procedure for evaluating ineffective-assistance claims requiring evidentiary hearing)
- People v Hurst, 205 Mich. App. 634 (limiting review to mistakes apparent on the record when no Ginther hearing held)