People of Michigan v. Dontreau Von Robinson
331680
Mich. Ct. App.Jul 13, 2017Background
- On Jan. 9, 2015 three armed men broke into Samantha and Christopher Smith’s home; Christopher was shot twice and left bleeding; Samantha and children were threatened and tied; various items (cash, electronics, a safe) were stolen.
- Dontreau Von Robinson was identified by both victims (Christopher by face and voice; Samantha via a photo) as one of the intruders, arrested, and charged with armed robbery, first-degree home invasion, and assault with intent to murder.
- At trial Robinson testified he was not involved and denied possessing a handgun that night.
- The prosecution introduced a Facebook video showing Robinson holding a handgun and saying the date/location, which contradicted his testimony; defense complained the video was undisclosed and prejudicial.
- A jury convicted Robinson on all counts; he was sentenced to concurrent terms (armed robbery and intent to murder: 30–80 years; home invasion: 13–20 years).
- On appeal Robinson argued (1) insufficient evidence of identity and intent to murder, (2) erroneous admission of the Facebook video and discovery violation, and (3) ineffective assistance/prosecutorial promise regarding a polygraph.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence on identity | Victims positively identified Robinson; testimony and circumstantial evidence support conviction | Robinson denied involvement; identification was unreliable | Affirmed — evidence (victim IDs) sufficient to prove Robinson was a perpetrator |
| Admissibility of Facebook video | Video was relevant to credibility and contradicted Robinson’s testimony about possessing a gun | Video was irrelevant, unfairly prejudicial, and undisclosed in discovery | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; video was probative and not unfairly prejudicial |
| Discovery/non‑disclosure of video | Prosecution complied / defense knew or should have known; court considered factors before admission | Video withheld until trial deprived defense of adequate preparation; suppression required | Affirmed — no bad faith shown; court weighed MCR 6.201 factors and reviewed video before play; exclusion not required |
| Sufficiency of intent to murder | Circumstantial evidence (shooting, nature of wounds, standing over, moving to bathroom, attempts to bind) supports intent | No direct proof that shots intended to kill | Affirmed — circumstantial evidence sufficient to infer intent to kill |
| Ineffective assistance / prosecutorial promise re: polygraph | No record basis; defense counsel referenced polygraph only in bond argument; prosecutor disclaimed reliance | Counsel promised dismissal if polygraph passed; reliance on that promise prejudiced defense | Denied — record does not support claim; defendant failed to establish factual predicate or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Ericksen, 288 Mich. App. 192 (application of circumstantial evidence and sufficiency review)
- People v. Davis, 241 Mich. App. 697 (positive identification can support conviction)
- People v. Bass, 317 Mich. App. 241 (standards for abuse of discretion on evidentiary rulings)
- People v. Mardlin, 487 Mich. 609 (MRE 403: unfair prejudice vs. probative value)
- People v. Bosca, 310 Mich. App. 1 (discovery rules under MCR 6.201 and remedies for nondisclosure)