People of Michigan v. Deitrich Raeshawn Sanders
332895
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 21, 2017Background
- Early-morning carjacking: victim Cara Jones approached her running car in her driveway; defendant approached with a gun, demanded keys and purse, jumped in driver’s seat but fled when the remotely-started car stalled; arrested shortly after.
- Police recovered a gun matching the victim’s description at the location defendant said he first saw police.
- Booking surveillance showed defendant handling a cloth in the back of a police car and (on a separate video) possibly discarding it in a jail toilet; police argued the cloth was the mask used in the carjacking.
- Detective Steven Dzierzawski testified about the videos and offered opinions based on his viewing, including that defendant’s interview demeanor suggested untruthfulness.
- Defendant convicted by jury of carjacking (MCL 750.529a) and felony-firearm (MCL 750.227b); sentenced as a fourth habitual offender to 300–600 months (carjacking) and 2 years (felony-firearm).
- On appeal defendant challenged (1) prosecutorial misconduct for eliciting improper opinion testimony from the detective, (2) ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object, and (3) OV 10 scoring for predatory conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct for eliciting opinion testimony about cloth disposal and interview demeanor | Prosecutor: Dzierzawski’s opinions were proper lay testimony based on his observations and helpful to jury (MRE 701) | Defense: Testimony improperly vouched for guilt and included conclusory opinions about innocence/guilt and what an innocent person would do | Court: Video-based opinions about hiding the cloth were proper; testimony opining about guilt/innocence and describing how "innocent people" behave was improper but not plain error because a curative instruction could have fixed prejudice |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object to detective’s testimony | State: Even if counsel erred, overwhelming evidence made any objection non-prejudicial | Sanders: Counsel deficient and prejudice likely changed outcome | Court: Performance deficient but no prejudice; overwhelming evidence meant no reasonable probability of a different result |
| OV 10 (exploitation of a vulnerable victim) scoring (15 points for predatory conduct) | State: Timing, location, and circumstances showed preoffense planning and targeting—supports predatory conduct | Sanders: This was a crime of opportunity, not predatory conduct; 0 points appropriate | Court: Affirmed 15 points; early-morning isolation and circumstances supported inference of predatory conduct |
| Sufficiency of alibi / credibility of alibi witness | State: Alibi contradicted; sister had not seen defendant for a week | Sanders: Alibi (sister) placed defendant elsewhere | Court: Jury reasonably discredited alibi; not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Carines, 460 Mich 750 (1999) (plain-error standard and requirements to avoid forfeiture)
- People v Oliver, 170 Mich App 38 (1988) (permissible lay-opinion testimony based on witness’s perceptions)
- People v Heft, 299 Mich App 69 (2012) (witness may not opine on defendant’s guilt)
- People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210 (2008) (deference to counsel’s strategic decisions; curative instruction can cure some errors)
- People v Vaughn, 491 Mich 642 (2012) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
- People v Huston, 489 Mich 451 (2011) (victim vulnerability may arise from circumstances; factors indicating predatory conduct)