People of Michigan v. Demetrius Fitzgerald Jenkins
351558
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 1, 2021Background:
- Defendant Jenkins was convicted by jury of two counts of delivery of a controlled substance causing death (Reynolds and Joshua) and sentenced to concurrent terms with 225 months’ minimums.
- Four men ingested what they believed was cocaine; it contained heroin and Reynolds and Joshua died; Christopher and Trevino survived.
- No direct eyewitness of the sale; video placed defendant alone with Reynolds at Fricker’s at the likely time of the transaction; defendant’s phone was remotely wiped after the deaths.
- Christopher’s live testimony included several volunteered/unresponsive statements (one naming Jenkins, one describing events he did not personally observe, and a hearsay remark), prompting a mistrial motion.
- A pretrial ruling admitted an out-of-court statement by Reynolds to his girlfriend that he was ill and had “got a bag from Cisco”; Detective Rufner testified as an expert on street-level narcotics (a “drug profile” witness).
- At sentencing the court scored OV 5 at 15 points based on victim-family testimony of severe psychological injury; defendant challenged proportionality of the within-guidelines sentence.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mistrial was required after Christopher’s volunteered/unresponsive testimony | Statements were volunteered; prosecutor did not solicit inadmissible testimony; objections sustained and curative steps taken | Statements were prejudicial hearsay and deprived Jenkins of a fair trial; mistrial required | No abuse of discretion: prosecutor did not encourage, objections were sustained, jury instructed to disregard, and cross-examination + clarifications cured prejudice |
| Admissibility of Reynolds’s statement to girlfriend that he “got a bag from Cisco” | Trial court properly admitted the statement at least in part as a present-sense impression (and alternatively argued excited-utterance/residual exceptions) | The portion identifying the source of drugs was not substantially contemporaneous and was inadmissible hearsay | Court: not admissible under MRE 803(1) (nor as excited utterance), but admission was harmless given overwhelming circumstantial evidence of guilt |
| Admissibility/use and limits of Detective Rufner’s “drug profile” testimony; counsel’s failure to object/request limiting instructions | Profile testimony admissible as background/modus operandi; jury instruction not requested and was waived; counsel strategy reasonable | Profile testimony improperly amounted to substantive evidence of guilt; court erred by not instructing; trial counsel ineffective for failing to object/request instructions | No plain error: testimony was background, prosecutor did not elicit guilt opinion, lack of requested instruction waived, and counsel’s strategy was reasonable/not ineffective given the weak role of the profile evidence |
| Proper scoring of OV 5 (psychological injury) | 15 points appropriate because victims’ families described severe emotional trauma likely requiring professional treatment | No evidence that families sustained serious psychological injury meriting 15 points | 15 points upheld: family testimony of severe trauma satisfied OV 5 under governing standards |
| Proportionality of sentence (within guidelines) | Sentences fall within guidelines; under MCL 769.34(10) appellate review is limited absent scoring error or inaccurate information | Jenkins contends Lockridge undermines MCL 769.34(10) and challenges proportionality | Sentence affirmed: within-guidelines; scoring challenge fails; precedent holds MCL 769.34(10) survives Lockridge and bars proportionality review here |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Dennis, 464 Mich. 567 (abuse-of-discretion standard for mistrial rulings)
- People v. Rao, 491 Mich. 271 (definition of abuse of discretion)
- People v. Lane, 308 Mich. App. 38 (mistrial only for prejudicial irregularity not curable by other means)
- People v. Jackson (On Reconsideration), 313 Mich. App. 409 (unresponsive testimony by prosecution witness and mistrial standard)
- People v. Hendrickson, 459 Mich. 229 (elements and contemporaneity requirement for present-sense impressions)
- People v. Smith, 456 Mich. 543 (excited-utterance doctrine and its focus on inability to fabricate)
- People v. Lukity, 460 Mich. 484 (harmless-error standard assessing effect on verdict)
- People v. Murray, 234 Mich. App. 46 (limits and proper uses of drug-profile evidence)
- People v. Calloway, 500 Mich. 180 (OV 5 scoring and seriousness threshold for psychological injury)
- People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (guidelines constitutional decision framing post-Lockridge review of within-guidelines sentences)