People of Michigan v. Dusawon Easman
329381
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jan 19, 2017Background
- At ~2:30 a.m. police illuminated a parked silver vehicle; defendant (a passenger) made a “dipping” motion toward the floorboard when officers approached.
- Officers removed and handcuffed defendant; a blue steel automatic handgun was found on the floor where defendant’s feet would have been.
- Parties stipulated defendant had a prior felony conviction and was ineligible to possess a firearm; prosecution proceeded on constructive-possession theory.
- Trial evidence included officer testimony that the dipping motion indicated reaching for/concealing an item and testimony explaining why fingerprints were not taken.
- Defendant was acquitted of related counts (carrying a concealed weapon; felony-firearm) but convicted by jury of felon-in-possession and sentenced to two years’ probation.
- On appeal defendant raised: insufficiency/great-weight of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, and entitlement to a missing-witness instruction for an unavailable endorsed officer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for felon-in-possession | Circumstantial evidence (dipping motion + gun at his feet) established knowledge and reasonable access → constructive possession | No direct proof defendant possessed the gun; officer testimony unreliable | Affirmed — viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, a rational jury could find constructive possession. |
| Verdict against great weight of evidence / inconsistent verdicts | Evidence supported conviction; jury crediting officers was permissible | Verdict was against the great weight; inconsistent acquittals on related counts show contradiction | Affirmed — evidence did not preponderate against verdict; inconsistent verdicts permissible. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (eliciting certainty, disparagement) | Officer testimony about certainty and prosecutor’s closing argument were proper impeachment/explanation of lack of prints and reasonable inferences | Prosecutor elicited witnesses’ opinions on guilt and disparaged defendant and defense counsel | No plain error — officer statements and prosecutor arguments were permissible or responsive to defense; comments did not require reversal. |
| Ineffective assistance / jury instruction / missing-witness instruction | Defense counsel preserved issues; should have objected to instructions and prosecutor’s conduct; missing witness instruction required for absent endorsed officer | Counsel’s failures were either meritless or futile; jury instruction included knowledge element; prosecution exercised due diligence for missing witness | Affirmed — counsel not ineffective (reasonable strategy/futile objections); jury instructed on knowledge and access; court did not abuse discretion denying missing-witness instruction. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Minch, 493 Mich 87 (2012) (constructive-possession test: nexus, knowledge, dominion/control)
- People v Johnson, 293 Mich App 79 (2011) (constructive possession = known location + reasonable accessibility)
- People v Lane, 308 Mich App 38 (2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210 (2008) (deference to jury on credibility; prosecutor’s latitude in argument)
- People v Carines, 460 Mich 750 (1999) (plain-error standard for unpreserved claims)
- People v McCray, 245 Mich App 631 (2001) (great-weight standard: miscarriage of justice test)
- People v Eccles, 260 Mich App 379 (2004) (due-diligence standard for missing-witness instruction)
- People v Heft, 299 Mich App 69 (2012) (witness may not opine on defendant’s guilt)
- People v Hill, 433 Mich 464 (1989) (constructive-possession explained: location known + reasonable access)
- People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192 (2010) (failing to raise futile objections does not constitute ineffective assistance)