People of Michigan v. Daniel Franklin Warford
334997
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- Defendant Daniel Warford was convicted by a jury of armed robbery for an incident at a Waterford Township pharmacy and sentenced as a fourth habitual offender to 12–30 years.
- Surveillance video showed a man lingering until other customers left, approaching the counter, stating he was armed, and demanding hydrocodone and oxycodone; the man then left when told none were available.
- A handwritten robbery note was found in an MDOC-issued coat belonging to defendant; defendant admitted in a police interview he had been at the pharmacy and was frustrated when refused hydrocodone.
- MDOC officer Tracy Swan (former parole officer) identified defendant on the surveillance video and testified that defendant had absconded from parole at the time of the robbery.
- Defense counsel did not object at trial to Swan’s testimony identifying defendant or to the prosecutor’s rebuttal comment; counsel argued in closing that the note seen in the video was not proven to be the same note recovered from defendant’s coat.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, improper opinion testimony, and prosecutorial misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance — failure to object to testimony that defendant absconded from parole | Prosecution: Swan’s testimony explained why she could identify defendant; identification evidence was admissible | Warford: Counsel should have objected to the testimony that he had absconded from parole as improper propensity evidence; objection would have affected outcome | Court: Mention of parole status was admissible to explain identification; testimony that he had absconded was improper but counsel’s failure to object was not prejudicial given strong other ID evidence; no relief |
| Ineffective assistance — closing argument allegedly shifted burden/criticized silence | Prosecution: Defense closing sought to cast doubt on whether the note in coat matched the video; argument was trial strategy | Warford: Defense counsel’s remarks implied defendant had burden to produce evidence and invited adverse inference from his silence | Court: Counsel’s remarks were a reasonable strategy to dispute the note’s provenance, did not shift burden or improperly comment on silence; even if error, no prejudice given instructions |
| Opinion testimony — Swan’s identification from video | Prosecution: Swan’s ID was rationally based on perception and helpful to jury (she was familiar with defendant and coat) | Warford: Swan’s opinion invaded the jury’s province by identifying the person on the tape | Held: Swan’s opinion was admissible lay opinion under MRE 701 because she was in a better position to identify defendant; any error was not plain or outcome-determinative |
| Prosecutorial misconduct — rebuttal comment about case length if defendant admitted presence | Prosecution: Comment responded to defense closing that defendant admitted being in store; used in context to explain trial focus | Warford: Remark invited jury to convict or penalize defendant for not admitting presence | Court: Comment was responsive to defense argument, not misconduct; unpreserved and, in context plus jury instructions, not outcome-determinative |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (1999) (standard for plain error review)
- People v. Ginther, 390 Mich. 436 (1973) (procedure for evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance claims)
- People v. Solloway, 316 Mich. App. 174 (2016) (review limits where no Ginther hearing; must show mistakes apparent on record)
- People v. Fomby, 300 Mich. App. 46 (2013) (police officer lay identification of surveillance images admissible when officer better positioned)
- People v. Denson, 500 Mich. 385 (2017) (distinguishing admissible non-propensity uses of parole/prior-offense evidence)
- People v. Watkins, 491 Mich. 450 (2012) (rule against propensity evidence and its risk of conviction based on character)
- People v. Lemmon, 456 Mich. 625 (1998) (province of jury to assess credibility and facts)
- People v. Graves, 458 Mich. 476 (1998) (presumption that juries follow instructions)