People of Michigan v. Antonio Lewis
333616
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- Victim Ivory Shaver disappeared Nov. 18, 2011; his body was found months later in a drainage ditch. His half-brother Antonio Lewis was charged with second-degree murder.
- Evidence was circumstantial: Lewis was last seen with Shaver, had access to Shaver’s phone and used it to send texts impersonating Shaver, and exchanged Shaver’s car for bail money.
- After an initial conviction, Lewis successfully appealed for denial of self-representation and was retried and reconvicted.
- At retrial the prosecution introduced a journal entry in which Lewis wrote that he was “killing Tony” and referenced calling a mental-health counselor; Shaver’s phone records showed a call to that counselor the same day.
- The prosecution also introduced testimony from Christina Rogers that Lewis choked her and said “I’ll kill you, too,” offered as context for that inculpatory statement.
- Lewis objected to admission of the journal and Rogers’s testimony as improper propensity evidence and unfairly prejudicial; he also raised ineffective-assistance claims for counsel’s failure to object. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of journal entry | Journal links Lewis to possession of Shaver’s phone (records show call to counselor same day); probative of identity/possession, not propensity | Journal improperly offered as other-act evidence under MRE 404(b) and was unfairly prejudicial | Admissible: relevant to possession/identity; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice; MRE 404(b) not implicated |
| Prejudice under MRE 403 for journal | Any prejudice (references to harming Rogers, mental-health issues) is minimal vs strong probative value tying Lewis to phone and victim | Journal references are prejudicial and could mislead jury about character/violence | No abuse: limiting instruction given; journal not needlessly cumulative; probative value high |
| Admission of Rogers’s choking testimony | Testimony provides context for Lewis’s statement “I’ll kill you, too,” making it understandable and probative of actual murder | Testimony is other-acts evidence showing propensity for violence and is unfairly prejudicial | Admissible: offered for context/identity, not propensity; relevant and probative; limiting instruction reduced prejudice |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object | N/A (prosecution/People argued evidence was proper) | Counsel ineffective for not objecting to journal as irrelevant/prejudicial/improper 404(b) purpose | Claim fails: objections would have been futile because evidence was properly admitted; no deficient performance shown |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Starr, 457 Mich. 490 (discretion standard for admissibility)
- People v. Feezel, 486 Mich. 184 (abuse-of-discretion definition)
- People v. Layher, 464 Mich. 756 (de novo review for legal questions on admissibility)
- People v. Burns, 494 Mich. 104 (reversal requires outcome-determinative preserved error)
- People v. Knox, 469 Mich. 502 (plain-error review when issue not preserved)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain error test)
- People v. Roper, 286 Mich. App. 77 (relevance and admissibility principles)
- People v. Blackston, 481 Mich. 451 (MRE 403 probative vs prejudicial balancing)
- People v. Waclawski, 286 Mich. App. 634 (trial-court discretion on balancing; juror instruction presumption)
- People v. VanderVliet, 444 Mich. 52 (MRE 404(b) framework)
- People v. Jackson, 498 Mich. 246 (limits on character-inference under 404(b))
- People v. Kimble, 470 Mich. 305 (preservation rules for objections)
- People v. Fike, 228 Mich. App. 178 (no need to raise futile objections)
- People v. Houston, 261 Mich. App. 463 (limiting instructions mitigate prejudice)