People of Michigan v. Bradley Grant Zdral
328570
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 22, 2016Background
- Defendant Bradley Zdral was convicted by a jury of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated causing serious injury after a July 26, 2014 crash that ejected passenger Shelley Silk, who suffered life-threatening injuries.
- Evidence tying defendant to driving: first responders found defendant on the driver’s side and Silk on the passenger side; defendant told emergency personnel and a deputy he was driving; Silk testified she was asleep in the passenger seat; cell-phone photos minutes before the crash showed Silk asleep in a reclined passenger seat; medical expert testimony on injury pattern supported passenger status.
- Defense theory: defendant testified that he and Silk switched seats about a mile before the crash and Silk was driving at the time of the accident; defense called defendant’s mother, Marlene, who testified she had seen Silk driving previously and photographed the reclined passenger seat.
- Prosecution called Colleen Bugg on rebuttal after defense rested; Bugg testified Marlene called her and repeatedly begged her to tell Silk’s family that Silk was driving because Marlene couldn’t "take it my son going to prison again," and also that Marlene asked Bugg to contact Silk’s mother.
- Defense objected briefly when Bugg mentioned prison but did not request a ruling, curative instruction, or strike; defendant failed to timely object to the testimony that Marlene asked Bugg to tell Silk’s family who was driving. Defendant appealed, arguing evidentiary error and prosecutorial misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Bugg’s rebuttal testimony that Marlene asked her to tell Silk’s family Silk was driving | Rebuttal testimony properly used to contradict Marlene’s testimony and responsive to defense presentation | Testimony was improper rebuttal and prejudicial; should be excluded or stricken | Court: The testimony contradicted Marlene but was responsive to prosecution’s cross, not to the defense’s direct; admission was improper on that basis but any error was harmless given overwhelming admissible evidence of guilt — no relief granted |
| Admission of Bugg’s volunteered statement that defendant had been to prison | Prosecution did not elicit that detail; the comment was nonresponsive and brief | Reference to prison was inadmissible character evidence under MRE 404(b) and prejudicial | Court: The prison reference was inadmissible but brief, isolated, not pursued further, and harmless in light of the strong evidence; no reversal |
| Prosecutorial misconduct for eliciting prison reference | Prosecutor did not intentionally elicit or encourage the prison remark; it was volunteered | Prosecutor elicited inadmissible prior-conviction implication and engaged in misconduct | Court: No misconduct; prosecutor question did not invite the prison remark, Bugg volunteered it, and there is no record the prosecutor knew or encouraged it; any prejudice could have been cured by instruction |
| Preservation and standard of review | Prosecution: objections were not preserved; review should be plain-error affecting substantial rights | Defendant: claims of error and misconduct warrant reversal/new trial | Court: Claims unpreserved; reviewed for plain error affecting substantial rights and concluded defendant failed to show outcome-determinative error; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain-error standard for unpreserved claims)
- People v. Figgures, 451 Mich. 390 (test for admissibility of rebuttal evidence)
- People v. Pipes, 475 Mich. 267 (defendant bears burden to show actual prejudice)
- People v. Ackerman, 257 Mich. App. 434 (curative instruction can cure prejudice under plain-error review)
- People v. Dobek, 274 Mich. App. 58 (good-faith effort to admit evidence is not prosecutorial misconduct)
- People v. Hackney, 183 Mich. App. 516 (volunteered testimony not necessarily prosecutorial misconduct)