People of Michigan v. Cedric Raynard Joyce
329973
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 16, 2017Background
- Victim Glenn Hutson was fatally stabbed on Dec 30, 2014; four eyewitnesses testified that defendant (aka “Bill Blast”) stabbed him multiple times.
- Kesdeisha Turner, an eyewitness who testified at the preliminary exam, was not present at trial; police conducted searches and obtained a warrant and witness detainer but could not locate her.
- At a due-diligence hearing, the trial court found Turner unavailable under MRE 804(a)(5) and admitted her preliminary-examination testimony under MRE 804(b)(1).
- Defendant argued on appeal that the prosecution failed to exercise due diligence and that admission of Turner’s prior testimony violated his Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights.
- Defendant also argued ineffective assistance of counsel because defense counsel did not challenge his warrantless arrest or move to suppress evidence from the arrest.
- The trial court convicted defendant of first-degree premeditated murder and sentenced him to life without parole; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Turner’s preliminary-exam testimony (MRE 804(b)(1)) | Prosecution: investigators made reasonable, good-faith efforts to locate Turner; she was unavailable, and prior testimony was admissible because defense previously cross-examined her. | Joyce: police did not show due diligence (e.g., additional inquiries to DHHS); admission violated hearsay rules and the Confrontation Clause. | Court: Due diligence satisfied by police efforts; Turner was unavailable and prior testimony admissible under MRE 804(b)(1); no Confrontation Clause violation. |
| Confrontation Clause challenge to prior testimony | Prosecution: former testimony admitted after cross-examination at preliminary exam meets Confrontation Clause requirements if witness is unavailable. | Joyce: admission of prior testimony violated Sixth Amendment. | Court: Admission did not violate the Sixth Amendment because Turner was unavailable and had been cross-examined previously. |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to challenge warrantless arrest | Prosecution: arrest was supported by probable cause from multiple eyewitness IDs and investigative leads; any suppression motion would have been futile. | Joyce: counsel should have moved to suppress evidence from an arrest made before a magistrate-signed warrant. | Court: Probable cause existed; arrest valid under statute; counsel not ineffective for failing to pursue a futile suppression motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bean, 457 Mich. 677 (1998) (due-diligence test for proving witness unavailability is one of reasonableness)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v. Cohen, 294 Mich. App. 70 (2011) (probable cause standard for warrantless arrests)
- People v. Farquharson, 274 Mich. App. 268 (2007) (similar motive inquiry for admissibility of prior testimony)
- People v. Garland, 286 Mich. App. 1 (2009) (former testimony admissible under MRE 804(b)(1) and Confrontation Clause if witness was unavailable and cross-examined previously)
- People v. Sabin (On Second Remand), 242 Mich. App. 656 (2000) (counsel not ineffective for failing to make futile motions)