People of Michigan v. Deneal Lee Smith, 353734

Background

On Oct. 15, 2018 a Clark gas station was robbed at gunpoint; clerk and manager gave descriptions and manager pursued the suspect, noting a license plate. Police stopped a silver Chevrolet Impala; defendant (Smith) was arrested after a brief pursuit.
Officers recovered sunglasses, a black thermal top, and gray gloves from Smith’s car; a black plastic bag was found in a nearby field; later an evidence technician found $232 in a red hoodie in the car.
Forensic testing placed Smith’s DNA on the plastic bag and phone-location evidence placed him near the robbery. Smith admitted being in the area but denied committing the robbery, asserting the money was planted and his DNA transferred to the bag.
Jury convicted Smith of two counts of armed robbery and one count of fourth-degree fleeing and eluding; acquitted on firearm and felon-in-possession counts. Smith was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender; he appealed.
Appellate issues: denial of Smith’s request to self-represent; limits on cross-examining a detective about search-warrant affidavits and searches; jury instruction that vehicle searches were lawful; admission of alleged hearsay and alleged ineffective assistance for failing to object.

Issues

Issue	People’s Argument	Smith’s Argument	Held
Right to self-representation	Smith’s request was equivocal (he said he would hire another lawyer if he could) so court could deny; trial court properly assessed waiver prudentially	Trial court violated Smith’s Sixth Amendment/Michigan Constitution right by refusing to permit self-representation without a full colloquy	Affirmed — request was equivocal; trial court reasonably denied waiver and complied with presumption against waiver of counsel
Use of affidavits to impeach Detective Gardiner	Gardiner properly relied on other officers’ reports in affidavits; if specific statements came from other officers, those officers — not Gardiner — should be examined	Gardiner should have been impeached for attesting to observations he did not personally make (to show dishonesty)	No abuse of discretion — jury heard that Gardiner relied on other officers and defense had opportunity to impeach his credibility sufficiently
Limits on cross-exam re. searches / parole evidence and jury instruction that searches were lawful	Trial court permissibly limited lines that would have invited parole-status evidence; court correctly instructed searches were lawful because pretrial ruling found parole condition authorized warrantless searches	Limits chilled defense inquiry into possible planting of money; jury instruction that searches were lawful foreclosed defense theory	Affirmed — court allowed cross‑examination about the Oct. 23 entry; pretrial suppression ruling (parole search condition) supported instruction; any error not plain or outcome‑determinative
Admission of radio/dispatch statements (hearsay) and counsel’s failure to object	Radio/transmissions and declarants’ excited/present-sense statements were admissible (or at least harmless) and duplicative of live testimony/recordings; objections would have been futile	Admission of extensive hearsay violated confrontation/due process; counsel ineffective for not objecting	Affirmed — if any hearsay error occurred it was harmless because same facts were shown by non-hearsay evidence; counsel not ineffective because objections would likely have failed or been futile

Key Cases Cited

People v. Russell, 471 Mich. 182 (2004) (requirements for a valid waiver of right to counsel and self-representation)
People v. Williams, 470 Mich. 634 (2004) (trial-court credibility findings on waiver/competence reviewed for clear error)
People v. Anderson, 398 Mich. 361 (1976) (competence and that technical legal knowledge not required to waive counsel)
People v. Pawelczak, 125 Mich. App. 231 (1983) (police radio transmissions may be admissible to show officers’ motive for pursuit)
People v. Eady, 409 Mich. 356 (1980) (no blanket hearsay exception for radio transmissions)
People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (1999) (plain‑error standard for unpreserved claims)
Smith v. Spisak, 558 U.S. 139 (2010) (ineffective-assistance prejudice prong discussion)
People v. Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich. 38 (2012) (Strickland standard applied in Michigan)