People of Michigan v. Antonio Dionca Lay
330880
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 1, 2017Background
- On Nov. 7–8, 2014, victim left a bar with Tavis Miller and defendant Antonio Lay to buy cocaine; they entered defendant’s car, where a gun was in the glovebox, defendant grabbed it, demanded money, and shot the victim as he tried to flee. Miller identified defendant; victim and Miller testified against defendant.
- Police recovered a handgun; Patricia Bailey testified she had been struck by defendant earlier in 2014 with the same-looking gun and identified the gun in evidence.
- Detective Timothy DeVries, admitted as an expert in forensic cellular telephone analysis, testified from defendant’s Call Detail Records (CDR) about tower locations and inferred defendant’s presence near the crime at relevant times.
- Miller had admitted lying to police and testified pursuant to a plea/sentence benefit; defense cross-examined him extensively. The trial court instructed the jury to consider Miller’s agreement when assessing credibility.
- Defendant was convicted of AWIGBH, assault with intent to rob while armed, felon-in-possession, and felony-firearm; sentenced as a third-offense habitual offender. Defendant appealed, raising multiple evidentiary, instructional, and ineffective-assistance claims.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting challenges to (1) admission of Bailey’s prior-assault testimony, (2) DeVries’s CDR expert testimony, (3) failure to give the model accomplice cautionary instruction sua sponte, and (4) several ineffective-assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of prior assault (Bailey) | Evidence tended to show defendant’s possession/control of the same gun and was relevant. | Admission was improper prior‑bad‑act evidence under MRE 404(b) and prejudicial. | Admitted under MRE 401 relevance independent of MRE 404(b); no abuse of discretion. |
| Admissibility of CDR expert testimony (MRE 702) | DeVries was qualified; testimony based on provider CDRs and reliable methods. | Testimony unreliable under Daubert factors; tower ping not definitive of location. | No plain error; DeVries met MRE 702 criteria and applied methods reliably. |
| Failure to give model accomplice instruction (M Crim JI 5.6) | Not requested; prosecution argued not required. | Instruction was required because Miller was an accomplice and had credibility issues. | Not required sua sponte; defense cross‑examination and trial court credibility instruction sufficed; no plain error. |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to request accomplice instruction | N/A | Counsel should have requested M Crim JI 5.6; omission prejudiced defendant. | Counsel’s cross‑examination plus court instruction made request not reasonably necessary; no deficient performance or prejudice shown. |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to object to CDR testimony | N/A | Counsel should have objected under MRE 702/Daubert; prejudice follows. | Objection likely futile because testimony met MRE 702; no deficient performance or prejudice. |
| Surprise witness (Schabel) and related IAC claim | N/A | Counsel failed to move to exclude unlisted surprise witness as required by statute; prejudicial. | Counsel erred in not objecting, but error not prejudicial because other witnesses (Bailey, Miller) linked defendant to the gun. |
| Jury instruction on proof beyond a reasonable doubt | N/A | Court failed to instruct that prosecution must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. | Waived by defense agreement; instructions sufficiently conveyed burden. |
| Court’s in‑court identification record entries | N/A | Court invaded jury province and showed partiality by ordering confirmations of in‑court IDs. | Court merely directed the record to reflect identifications; no judicial partiality. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Yost, 278 Mich App 341 (discussing abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- People v Sabin, 463 Mich 43 (close evidentiary questions rarely constitute abuse of discretion)
- People v Hall, 433 Mich 573 (other‑acts evidence admissible under MRE 401 when relevant without invoking MRE 404(b))
- People v Vandervliet, 444 Mich 52 (reiterating Hall approach to other‑acts evidence)
- People v Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101 (preservation rules for expert‑qualification objections)
- People v Carines, 460 Mich 750 (plain‑error test for unpreserved constitutional claims)
- People v Young, 472 Mich 130 (accomplice‑instruction requirements and when court must give cautionary instruction)
- People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210 (MRE 702 and Daubert incorporation in Michigan)
- People v Chapin, 274 Mich App 122 (MRE 702 reliability analysis)
- People v Russell, 297 Mich App 707 (standard for ineffective assistance — deficient performance and prejudice)
- People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192 (failure to raise futile objection is not ineffective assistance)
- People v Payne, 285 Mich App 181 (review limitations where no Ginther hearing held)
- United States v Cronic, 466 US 648 (circumstances where prejudice presumed for complete denial of counsel)
- People v Frazier, 478 Mich 231 (application of Cronic in Michigan)
- People v Stevens, 498 Mich 162 (judicial impartiality and courtroom conduct)
- People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 (Ginther hearing procedure)