People of Michigan v. Daniel Horacek
333050
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- On May 11, 2015 a security alarm at a Waterford Township dental office revealed a forced-entry; surveillance video showed a person holding a pry bar and disturbing items but nothing was stolen.
- Detective Novak obtained the video but did not recognize the suspect; Detective Miller, from prior contacts with defendant Horacek, identified the suspect in the video as Horacek.
- The prosecution also introduced evidence of four prior break-ins/attempts (with similar use of pry tools) in which Horacek had been arrested or convicted to prove intent and identity under MRE 404(b).
- Horacek was convicted by a jury of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny and sentenced as a fourth habitual offender to 76 months–30 years, consecutive to parole.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but ordered remand for administrative corrections to the judgment of sentence, a restitution hearing, and correction of the PSIR to reflect sentencing-court determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence/identity | Prosecutor: video, booking photos, Miller’s ID, in-court observation, and other-acts evidence suffice to prove identity beyond reasonable doubt | Horacek: video is too poor; only prior-bad-acts and Miller’s ID support identity | Affirmed: jurors could reasonably identify Horacek from video, photos, testimony, and other-acts evidence |
| Admissibility of other-acts (MRE 404(b)) | Evidence admissible to prove intent, identity, and common scheme/plan (similar method: pry tools) | Horacek: evidence used for propensity; prejudicial; he offered to stipulate to intent | Affirmed: proper purposes stated, relevance shown, probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; limiting instruction given |
| Lay-opinion ID testimony (MRE 701) | Miller’s opinion helpful — she had prior familiarity and was better positioned to ID the poor-quality images | Horacek: jury could view video and see him at trial; Miller invaded jury province | Affirmed: Miller was in better position to ID (familiarity, clearer observation) and testimony did not usurp jury role |
| Motion to adjourn trial for missing defense witness | Prosecution: evidence proffered was irrelevant and confidentiality barred testimony; no good cause/diligence | Horacek: needed adjournment to obtain documents and secure testimony to show police fabrications | Affirmed: defendant lacked diligence/good cause and showed no resulting prejudice |
| Hearsay / Confrontation Clause | Prosecution: Novak’s testimony about time-stamp belief explained change in his state of mind, not offered for truth; Schroeder’s comment not substantive evidence | Horacek: witnesses’ out-of-court statements were hearsay and denied confrontation rights | Affirmed: statements not offered for substantive truth; Confrontation Clause not violated; any error not plain or not outcome-determinative |
| Prosecutorial misconduct re: video timestamps / Brady claim | Prosecution: timestamps were on original disc but did not transfer to police copy; defense had both copies and no evidence withheld | Horacek: prosecutor removed timestamps and withheld exculpatory evidence | Affirmed: no misconduct or withholding; defense had seen both exhibits |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | N/A (prosecution does not concede) | Horacek: trial counsel failed to object to hearsay, video without timestamps, and alleged Brady violation | Denied: alleged objections were meritless; failing to raise futile objections not ineffective assistance |
| Sentencing/administrative corrections, restitution, PSIR | State agreed corrections and a restitution hearing were appropriate | Horacek: sought remand to correct sentence entries, obtain restitution hearing, and amend PSIR | Remanded: for administrative correction to judgments (concurrency/credit clarifications), a restitution hearing (prosecutor must prove amount), and PSIR corrections per court’s sentencing determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) (Due process requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. VanderVliet, 444 Mich. 52 (Mich. 1993) (framework for admitting other-acts evidence under MRE 404(b))
- People v. Crawford, 458 Mich. 376 (Mich. 1998) (prosecution must explain how other-acts evidence relates to proper purpose)
- People v. Mardlin, 487 Mich. 609 (Mich. 2010) (MRE 404(b) is inclusionary and limits on propensity use)
- People v. Fomby, 300 Mich. App. 46 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (criteria for lay-opinion ID testimony from video)
- People v. Unger, 278 Mich. App. 210 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (jury decides weight/credibility of evidence)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- People v. Tyler, 188 Mich. App. 83 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991) (trial court must ascertain actual restitution amount before ordering)
- People v. Howell, 300 Mich. App. 638 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) (procedures for correcting sentencing judgments)
- People v. Daniels, 311 Mich. App. 257 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015) (standards for adjournment/continuance requests)