People of Michigan v. Antonio Dontez Webster
333636
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- Defendant Antonio Dontez Webster was convicted by a jury of two counts of assault with intent to do great bodily harm, two counts of felonious assault, felon in possession of a firearm, and second-offense felony-firearm; sentenced as a third-offense habitual offender to concurrent terms for the assaults and felon-in-possession, consecutive to a five-year felony-firearm term.
- The charges arose from an April 21, 2015 shooting that wounded Brian Fitzhugh and Jamal Roquemore; evidence placed defendant and a codefendant at the scene, and two firearms connected to the home were linked by DNA and ballistics.
- Prosecution introduced six recorded telephone calls (between defendant, the victim’s associate Dionne, and jail inmates) to show attempts to suppress testimony or otherwise demonstrate consciousness of guilt.
- Defendant challenged admission of the calls on hearsay and Confrontation Clause grounds and also objected to a special jury instruction about how the calls could be used.
- The Court of Appeals found several of the calls were improperly admitted under hearsay/party-opponent exceptions but held the errors harmless given the substantial admissible evidence; it rejected defendant’s confrontation claim and his jury-instruction claim (record showed he approved the instruction language given).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of six recorded phone calls | Calls show attempts to suppress/alter testimony or consciousness of guilt and fit party-opponent exceptions to hearsay | Calls (many made by third parties) are hearsay and inadmissible; some not relevant to guilt | Court: Admission of May 6 and May 3 calls proper; May 7, May 20, May 21, May 24 calls improperly admitted, but error harmless |
| Application of MRE 801(d)(2) party-opponent exclusions | Some callers acted at defendant’s direction or on his behalf, making their statements admissions by a party-opponent | No direct evidence of authorization, agency, or conspiracy for several calls | Court: 801(d)(2)(C)/(D)/(E) supported for May 3 call under facts; insufficient for May 24 and others; agency/conspiracy not proved for those calls |
| Confrontation Clause challenge to out-of-court inmate statements | Defendant argued testimonial statements required Crawford/Bullcoming protections (cross-exam) | Prosecution: statements were informal, not testimonial | Court: Statements were non-testimonial (informal) and defendant’s Confrontation Clause claim rejected |
| Jury instruction about permissible use of calls | Prosecution proposed instruction allowing use to determine guilt; trial court’s instruction permitted use as to guilt or innocence | Defendant contended instruction misstated standard (beyond reasonable doubt/innocence language) | Court: Record shows trial court amended the wording and defendant approved; no instructional error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Bynum, 496 Mich 610 (court of appeals reviews admission for abuse of discretion; preliminary legal questions de novo)
- People v Washington, 468 Mich 667 (rule on review standard for legal questions)
- People v Schaw, 288 Mich App 231 (evidence that defendant tried to influence a witness is relevant as consciousness of guilt)
- People v Hooper, 50 Mich App 186 (attempts to suppress testimony or induce perjury admissible as evidence of guilt)
- Lukity v People, 460 Mich 484 (preserved nonconstitutional evidentiary error presumed harmless; outcome-determinative standard)
- Whittaker v People, 465 Mich 422 (error not outcome-determinative unless it undermines verdict reliability)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 US 36 (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial hearsay unless witness unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity to cross-examine)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 US 647 (Confrontation Clause and testimonial statements)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 US 813 (standard for determining whether statements are testimonial)