People of Michigan v. George Ardell Alexander
326466
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 14, 2016Background
- Early morning Aug. 5, 2014: defendant (wearing a blood-spotted brown tracksuit) arrived at Robert Gibbs’s home, later was seen taking Albert Johnson’s burgundy F‑150 and driving away; Johnson was later found dead on his front porch from blunt chest trauma and manual strangulation.
- Witnesses (Gibbs, Brown, Porter) testified Johnson never let others hold or drive his truck and that a struggle occurred on the porch shortly before defendant left in the truck.
- Defendant was arrested later that morning at 2446 Ford St. wearing a brown tracksuit; his sister Monica later told a neighbor (Katrina) that her brother had killed someone and taken an F‑150 and had the defendant’s clothes in a bag.
- Forensic and medical evidence: autopsy classified death a homicide (blunt chest trauma and manual strangulation); DNA testing of certain items excluded both Johnson and defendant as contributors in some samples but did not refute the prosecution’s circumstantial case.
- Procedural posture: defendant convicted by jury of first‑degree felony murder (felony = carjacking) and carjacking; sentenced to life without parole (felony murder) and 40–60 years for carjacking; appeals denied and convictions affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for carjacking | Evidence and reasonable inferences show defendant used force/fear to take truck and Johnson was present when truck was taken | No evidence he used force or threatened Johnson; complainants weren’t “in presence” of vehicle per former statute | Affirmed: circumstantial evidence (struggle, timing, Johnson’s habits re: keys) supports carjacking and felony‑murder nexus (Hardy/Nowack principles) |
| Whether Johnson’s death occurred during carjacking (felony‑murder) | Facts permit inference defendant intended and committed carjacking in connection with the killing | Killing not tied to a larceny/carjacking in evidence | Affirmed: intent and temporal connection sufficiently inferred |
| Motion for mistrial based on officer testimony about defendant not providing information | Officer’s unsought remark was descriptive of investigation, not a comment on asserted silence; prosecutor’s follow‑up clarified defendant spoke and said he didn’t remember | Statement infringed Fifth Amendment and prejudiced jury | Denial affirmed: no improper use of silence; comment was unsolicited and later clarified (Shafier/Doyle analysis) |
| Admissibility of Monica’s statements as excited utterances (MRE 803(2)) | Monica appeared highly excited and made incriminating statements shortly after defendant’s arrival and confession; stress-to-fabricate analysis favors admission | Delay (hours) and lack of trial testimony undermine trustworthiness | Affirmed: trial court didn’t abuse discretion; focus is lack of capacity to fabricate, not strictly time elapsed (Smith) |
| Admission of preliminary exam testimony of Latrice Neal under MRE 804(b)(1) / confrontation | Prosecution exercised due diligence to locate Neal (multiple searches, databases, subpoenas, police contacts); prior testimony was subject to cross‑examination | Efforts were insufficient/tardy given Neal’s reluctance to testify | Affirmed: court reasonably found due diligence and admitted preliminary testimony (Bean standard) |
| Prosecutorial misconduct during closing (references to additional stabbing; appeal to sympathy) | Remarks were supported by evidence (Neal’s testimony that defendant said he stabbed someone) and were isolated; jury instruction cured any risk | Prosecutor improperly suggested unproven other acts and appealed to sympathy for victim | Affirmed: no plain error; comments were reasonable inferences or isolated and mitigated by instructions |
| Denial of requested duress instruction | No evidence of present, imminent threat or that defendant acted under fear of death/serious harm | Witness testimony that defendant yelled “They’re trying to rob me” and appeared afraid supported duress | Denial affirmed: defendant failed to produce some evidence meeting duress elements (Henderson/Lemons standard) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Henderson, 306 Mich. App. 1 (elements and instruction standards discussed)
- People v. Hardy, 494 Mich. 430 (carjacking statute elements and force/fear requirement)
- People v. Nowack, 462 Mich. 392 (circumstantial evidence and inferences for sufficiency review)
- People v. Bean, 457 Mich. 677 (due diligence test for admitting prior testimony under MRE 804(b)(1))
- Smith v. People, 456 Mich. 543 (excited utterance analysis focusing on inability to fabricate)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause principles)
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (limitations on using post‑arrest silence)