People of Michigan v. Deangelo Jordan
365997
Mich. Ct. App.Sep 5, 2025Background:
- Defendant Deangelo Jordan lived with the victims (AE and ME) and their mother; assaults began when AE was 11 and ME was 9 and occurred in the shared home.
- AE and ME testified to multiple instances of sexual touching and penetration by Jordan; mother and detective also testified.
- Jury convicted Jordan of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I) and six counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-II).
- Trial court sentenced Jordan to 25–40 years (CSC-I), 10–15 years (CSC-II), lifetime SORA registration, and lifetime electronic monitoring.
- On appeal Jordan challenged (1) denial of a mistrial after a witness mentioned his prior incarceration, (2) alleged Brady disclosure failures about home security cameras, (3) several evidentiary rulings (hearsay and other-acts testimony), (4) ineffective assistance of counsel, (5) cumulative error, and (6) constitutionality of lifetime SORA and electronic monitoring (including Fourth Amendment claim).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Jordan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mistrial for witness mention of defendants prior incarceration | Statement was unresponsive and inadvertent; struck and cured by instruction | Single reference was highly prejudicial and required mistrial | No abuse of discretion; testimony was unresponsive, struck, and jury instruction cured prejudice |
| Brady disclosure re: home security cameras | Relevant facts (mother gave cameras; no footage) were disclosed at trial and not favorable/material to defendant | Late disclosure prevented recall/cross-examination and impeded defense theory (tampering/exculpation) | No Brady violation: evidence was not favorable/exculpatory or material; defense had opportunity to question and learned substance at trial |
| Hearsay: detectives description of AE pointing during forensic interview | Testimony described behavior, not substantive new detail; harmless and brief | Testimony was impermissible nonverbal hearsay bolstering AE | Even if hearsay, no plain error affecting outcome; testimony was vague and not outcome-determinative |
| Other-acts (mothers testimony about domestic altercations) | Admissible under MCL 768.27b for domestic violence/sexual-assault cases; probative and not unduly prejudicial | Testimony was improper other-acts evidence or lacked required notice and was unfairly prejudicial | Admission proper under statute and MRE 403 balancing; no plain error and notice issue unsupported by record |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object or recall witnesses | People: objections were unnecessary or would have been futile; instruction and record negate prejudice | Counsels omissions undermined fairness and deprived opportunities to impeach witnesses | No plain-record showing of deficient performance or prejudice; many objections would have been futile or remedied |
| Cumulative error | People: identified errors were minor and cured; no cumulative prejudice | Combined errors deprived defendant of fair trial | No cumulative-error reversal: errors (if any) were minimal and did not undermine confidence in outcome |
| Constitutionality of lifetime SORA registration | SORA not punitive when applied to CSC-I offenders; statute constitutional | Lifetime registration is cruel and unusual | Challenge rejected: registration not punishment for CSC-I under controlling framework |
| Lifetime electronic monitoring: cruel or unusual punishment and unreasonable search | Precedent upholds lifetime monitoring as constitutional and reasonable balancing of public interest | Lifetime monitoring is punishment and/or an unreasonable Fourth Amendment search | Monitoring is punishment but not cruel/unusual; monitoring is a reasonable search under binding precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Lane, 308 Mich App 38 (mistrial/curative-instruction analysis)
- People v Haywood, 209 Mich App 217 (unresponsive volunteered answer not grounds for mistrial)
- People v Abraham, 256 Mich App 265 (jurors presumed to follow instructions)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (Brady disclosure framework)
- People v Christian, 510 Mich 52 (Brady review and standards)
- People v Stanaway, 446 Mich 643 (prosecutors duty to disclose favorable evidence)
- People v Chenault, 495 Mich 142 (what constitutes evidence favorable to defense)
- People v Watkins, 491 Mich 450 (MRE 403/Watkins factors for other-acts balancing)
- People v Hallak, 310 Mich App 555 (lifetime electronic monitoring constitutional and Fourth Amendment analysis)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance standard)
- People v Carines, 460 Mich 750 (plain-error standard)
- People v Pagano, 507 Mich 26 (Fourth Amendment/search reasonableness framework)