People of Michigan v. Donna Kay Scrivo
330292
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- Defendant Donna Scrivo was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree premeditated murder, mutilation of a human body, and removing a body without medical examiner permission for the death and dismemberment of her 32‑year‑old son, Ramsay Scrivo; remains were found in 12 pieces along a highway.
- Prosecution evidence: victim had fatal asphyxiation with high levels of Xanax; defendant had missing Xanax pills from her prescription; a saw matching the model defendant purchased and blood consistent with the victim were found near the remains and in defendant’s vehicle; witnesses saw defendant put large black bags in her SUV and later observed her disposing of items along the highway; defendant’s DNA found on a glove found with remains.
- Defendant’s trial testimony: claimed a masked intruder killed the victim, stayed for several days, and forced her to help dispose of the body.
- Trial incidents: prosecutor questioned defendant about post‑Miranda silence and engaged in argumentative/yelling questioning; limited contested testimony about defendant’s character ( testimony from sister‑in‑law); some jurors briefly saw jury packet pages listing statutory penalties.
- On appeal, defendant challenged prosecutorial misconduct, multiple ineffective‑assistance claims, admission of evidence, and sufficiency of the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed all convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Scrivo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct — comments/questions about defendant’s post‑Miranda silence and argumentative/yelling conduct | Prosecutor’s questions and argument were legitimate impeachment/rebuttal and did not prejudice defendant given evidence strength and curative instructions | Prosecutor improperly used post‑arrest silence to impeach, introduced irrelevant character‑type evidence, and argued/yelled with witnesses, denying a fair trial | Some questioning about post‑Miranda silence and argumentative conduct was improper, but any error was harmless given overwhelming evidence and curative instructions; no relief granted |
| Prosecutorial misconduct — eliciting character/other‑acts evidence | Testimony had colorable admissibility (rebuttal/opening), and trial court controlled questioning | Elicited testimony about unrelated bad acts and family incidents that improperly portrayed defendant as bad person | Court agreed portions should have been excluded in abstract but concluded prosecutor’s conduct did not amount to reversible misconduct on the record because prosecution had colorable arguments and trial court rulings cured prejudice |
| Ineffective assistance — failure to object, call experts/witnesses, or avoid defendant testifying | Defense strategy choices were reasonable; where counsel didn’t object or call experts, overwhelming evidence still defeats prejudice prong | Trial counsel unreasonably failed to object to prosecutorial misconduct, failed to call experts (Xanax metabolism, strength/movement, bruise timing), failed to secure Officer Drula’s statement, and failed to keep defendant from testifying | Many decisions were strategic; counsel’s failure to object to some prosecutor conduct was objectively unreasonable but not prejudicial given the strong evidence; claims about missing expert proof and witness offers fail for lack of factual predicate; no reversal |
| Sufficiency of evidence | Circumstantial and direct evidence (saw, blood, pills, witness observations, toxicology, DNA) proved murder and attendant offenses beyond reasonable doubt | Prosecution failed to prove how Xanax was administered or how defendant (small, older) could have strangled/moved victim; alternate masked‑man story created reasonable doubt | Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational jury could find all elements beyond a reasonable doubt; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Carines, 460 Mich 750 (establishes plain‑error standard and prejudice inquiry)
- People v Shafier, 483 Mich 205 (post‑Miranda silence cannot be used to impeach exculpatory testimony)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668 (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard: deficient performance and prejudice)
- People v Thomas, 260 Mich App 450 (standard for de novo review where claims preserved)
- People v LeBlanc, 465 Mich 575 (cumulative‑error doctrine and requirement to show prejudice)
- People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210 (standard for reviewing credibility and relevance of evidence such as autopsy photos)