Background - Dixon‑Bey stabbed her boyfriend, Gregory Stack, to death on February 14, 2015; she was charged with first‑degree murder and convicted by a jury of second‑degree murder. - At first she denied involvement, later claimed self‑defense; prosecution presented evidence undermining self‑defense (two fatal chest wounds, lack of defensive injuries on victim, inconsistent statements, prior threats and a past stabbing). - Detective Gary Schuette was qualified at trial as an expert in homicide‑scene evidence interpretation and offered opinions about the crime scene, the force needed to cause the wounds, and typical post‑self‑defense behavior. - The trial court admitted testimony about Dixon‑Bey’s prior stabbing of the victim (roughly 10 years earlier) and testimony that she tried to prevent the victim’s biological daughter from having custody of a child after the murder. - Defense counsel did not object to certain testimony; Dixon‑Bey raised claims on appeal of evidentiary error, ineffective assistance, improper admission of prior‑acts evidence, and that the sentence (35–70 years) was an unreasonable upward departure from advisory guidelines. - The court affirmed the conviction, held portions of the detective’s expert testimony were erroneously admitted but not outcome‑determinative, upheld admission of custody and prior‑stabbing evidence, found no ineffective assistance, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing as disproportionate. ### Issues | Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People / Prosecution) | Defendant's Argument (Dixon‑Bey) | Held | |---|---:|---|---| | Admissibility of Detective Schuette as expert and scope of his opinions | Detective qualified as expert in homicide‑scene interpretation; his testimony assisted jury about scene, force, demeanor | Schuette opined beyond expertise (behavioral profiling re: self‑defense and force required to reach the heart); testimony speculative and prejudicial | Court: qualification for scene interpretation proper, but his opinions on typical self‑defense demeanor and on exact force required exceeded his demonstrated expertise and were erroneously admitted — error harmless (not outcome‑determinative) | | Admission of evidence about attempts to block custody (MM testimony) | Relevant to consciousness of guilt, witnesses’ biases, and defendant’s state of mind after the killing | Irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial, cast defendant as evil | Court: testimony relevant to credibility and consciousness of guilt; not unfairly prejudicial; admission within reasonable discretion | | Admission of evidence of prior stabbing of victim | Prior stabbing admitted to rebut defendant’s denial and to show intent/motive, not propensity; relevant under MRE 404(b) and possibly MCL 768.27b | Irrelevant to self‑defense at time of charged offense; unfairly prejudicial and improperly character evidence | Court: prior stabbing admissible as other‑acts evidence to rebut defendant’s testimony and show intent/absence of surprise; admission not an abuse of discretion | | Sentence upward departure (35–70 years) | Prosecutor urged significant upward departure given depraved, cold‑blooded nature, prior threats, disposal of weapon | Sentence disproportionate to offense and offender; guidelines (12–20 yrs) were advisory and departure unjustified | Court: departure unreasonable under proportionality principle; trial court failed to justify why departure more proportionate; vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing | ### Key Cases Cited People v. Steele, 283 Mich. App. 472 (Mich. Ct. App.) (standard for abuse of discretion on expert testimony and qualifications) People v. Dobek, 274 Mich. App. 58 (Mich. Ct. App.) (police officer lay vs expert opinion interplay) People v. Kowalski, 492 Mich. 106 (Mich.) (evaluation of expert demeanor evidence) People v. Peterson, 450 Mich. 349 (Mich.) (jury evaluation of expert testimony) People v. Coy, 243 Mich. App. 283 (Mich. Ct. App.) (preserved nonconstitutional evidentiary error harmless only if not outcome‑determinative) People v. Unger, 278 Mich. App. 210 (Mich. Ct. App.) (conflicting statements as evidence of consciousness of guilt) People v. Jackson, 498 Mich. 246 (Mich.) (standard for reversal on preserved nonconstitutional error) People v. Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich. 38 (Mich.) (Strickland standard applied in Michigan ineffective‑assistance claims) People v. Ericksen, 288 Mich. App. 192 (Mich. Ct. App.) (meritless objections do not establish ineffective assistance) People v. Hartford, 159 Mich. App. 295 (Mich. Ct. App.) (police officer expertise on wounds when trained in related courses) People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (Mich.) (guidelines advisory after Booker/Lockridge) People v. Steanhouse, 500 Mich. 453 (Mich.) (abuse‑of‑discretion review for proportionality; principle‑of‑proportionality test) People v. Milbourn, 435 Mich. 630 (Mich.) (proportionality principle in sentencing) People v. Smith, 482 Mich. 292 (Mich.) (guidelines as objective guideposts for proportionality) People v. Babcock, 469 Mich. 247 (Mich.) (deference to trial court familiarity in sentencing) People v. Houston, 448 Mich. 312 (Mich.) (when guidelines inadequately reflect seriousness, trial court justification considered)