People of Michigan v. Andrew Clayton Sarnecki
329218
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- Defendant Andrew Sarnecki was tried for multiple offenses arising from events on October 28, 2014; jury convicted him of one count of felonious assault (assault with a dangerous weapon), one count of felony-firearm, and one count of domestic assault; acquitted on three other counts.
- Felonious-assault conviction (Count 1) was based on allegations that defendant chased and threatened his second wife with a gun; felony-firearm (Count 2) relied on that felonious-assault predicate.
- Other charged acts included alleged assaults with 2x4s, throwing boxes of vitamins, and interference with the wife’s phone; the jury acquitted on those counts.
- On cross-examination defendant testified he was not a violent man and was religious; prosecutor then questioned him about a prior alleged domestic assault against his first wife based on a police report (no testimony from the first wife or document admission).
- Trial court allowed the cross-examination, finding defendant opened the door; defendant appealed, raising errors for admission of other-act evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and sufficiency/great-weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of prior-act/domestic-violence evidence | Prosecutor contends questioning was permissible to rebut defendant’s character testimony and was limited to cross-examining specific-instance conduct under MRE 405(a) | MCL 768.27b procedure not followed; prior-act evidence improperly presented to jury via prosecutor’s questions about the police report | Court: No MCL 768.27b problem because no extrinsic evidence of the prior act was admitted; defendant’s testimony opened the door and MRE 404(a)/405(a) permitted inquiry into specific instances on cross-examination; no reversible error |
| Ineffective assistance for not calling witnesses or pursuing lines of proof | Prosecutor/People argue defense strategy choices were reasonable; calling certain witnesses posed risk of emphasizing prior allegations or would be inadmissible | Defendant says counsel should have called first wife and others, elicited divorce-settlement evidence, probed wife’s mental health, and sought continuance | Court: Strategic decisions presumed reasonable; record lacks supporting affidavits/ factual predicate; no deficient performance or prejudice shown |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in eliciting prior-report material and aggressiveness | Prosecutor acted within bounds to test credibility and used questions legitimately believed admissible | Defendant contends prosecutor "back-doored" hearsay, demeaned witnesses, and should have called first wife to present her version | Court: No misconduct—questions were proper impeachment/credibility challenges; aggressive cross-examination not plain error; no substantial-rights prejudice shown |
| Sufficiency / great-weight of evidence for felonious assault (gun) | Prosecution: circumstantial and testimonial evidence (wife saw gun, heard clicking, defendant chased and screamed, wife feared he would shoot) supports intent to place victim in reasonable apprehension | Defendant: Possession alone insufficient; prosecution failed to show he pointed or intended to assault with the gun | Court: Evidence (wife’s fear, defendant’s conduct, sister’s observations) sufficient to permit rational jury verdict; no exceptional circumstances warranting new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lukity, 460 Mich. 484 (1999) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- People v. Washington, 468 Mich. 667 (2003) (standard of review for preliminary legal questions on admissibility)
- People v. Bahoda, 448 Mich. 261 (1994) (questions by lawyers are not evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v. Carbin, 463 Mich. 590 (2001) (appellate review framework for ineffective-assistance claims)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (1999) (circumstantial evidence and standard of review for sufficiency)
- People v. Lemmon, 456 Mich. 625 (1998) (great-weight-of-the-evidence standard; when appellate court may overturn jury credibility findings)
- People v. Meissner, 294 Mich. App. 438 (2011) (admissibility of prior statements to law enforcement in domestic-violence context)