People of Michigan v. Cynthia Denise Harris, 352607

On June 16, 2019, Cynthia Harris brandished and swung a kitchen knife during an argument with her niece (Jaida Gills) and Gills’s boyfriend (Jeffrey Leseure); Gills’s hand was cut.
Harris admitted she used the knife to scare the pair and conceded on the stand facts supporting felonious assault (assault with a dangerous weapon and intent to injure or create apprehension).
Gills testified at the preliminary examination but was unavailable at trial; the court admitted her prior testimony under MRE 804(b)(1) and it was read to the jury.
After conviction, Harris argued trial counsel was ineffective for failing to impeach Leseure with his subsequent misdemeanor convictions for receiving/concealing stolen property and argued the prosecutor violated Brady by not disclosing those convictions.
Harris also argued the admission of Gills’s prior testimony violated the Confrontation Clause because defense counsel’s preliminary-exam cross was allegedly inadequate given evidence discovered afterward.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding any errors were nonprejudicial: the misdemeanor convictions likely were inadmissible without factual predicate, Harris’s own testimony established the offense, and the prior opportunity to cross-examine satisfied confrontation requirements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Counsel ineffective for not impeaching Leseure with convictions	Counsel not deficient because convictions likely inadmissible under MRE 609 and failure to pursue was reasonable	Counsel should have impeached Leseure to undercut credibility	No ineffective assistance: likely inadmissible evidence and no prejudice because Harris admitted elements on the stand
Brady violation for nondisclosure of Leseure convictions	Nondisclosure not material; admissibility uncertain so Brady not violated	Prosecutor suppressed impeachment evidence that would have aided defense	No Brady violation: favorability/admissibility unclear and not material to outcome
Admission of Gills’s preliminary-exam testimony (Confrontation Clause)	Admission permitted: Gills unavailable and defense had prior opportunity to cross-examine	Prior cross-exam was inadequate due to evidence discovered after preliminary exam; jury deprived of demeanor assessment	No Confrontation Clause violation: prior opportunity for effective cross existed and post-exam evidence did not negate it
Cumulative error	No cumulative prejudicial errors to aggregate	Combined alleged errors deprived Harris of a fair trial	No cumulative error: no individual errors shown and Harris’s testimony independently established guilt

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (ineffective-assistance standard)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose favorable, material evidence)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial hearsay absent unavailability and prior opportunity for cross)
United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554 (1988) (Confrontation Clause guarantees opportunity for effective cross-examination, not perfect cross)
People v. Chenault, 495 Mich. 142 (2014) (Brady framework under Michigan law)
People v. Parcha, 227 Mich. App. 236 (1997) (MRE 609 and when theft offenses may reflect dishonesty)
People v. Matuja, 77 Mich. App. 291 (1977) (elements of receiving and concealing stolen property)
People v. Ericksen, 288 Mich. App. 192 (2010) (futility of raising meritless objections and ineffective-assistance analysis)
People v. Hoag, 460 Mich. 1 (1999) (defendant must establish factual predicate for ineffective-assistance claim)
People v. Dobek, 274 Mich. App. 58 (2007) (cumulative-error doctrine)