People of Michigan v. Hyo Sang Rogers
326055
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 18, 2016Background
- Defendant Rogers and co-defendant Mayes allegedly robbed Montroy’s Market; Rogers is accused of brandishing a handgun and threatening customers while Mayes took money and merchandise.\
- Three eyewitnesses (Adil, Bryant, Hamilton-Whitsett) identified Rogers from a six-person photographic lineup; one witness (Subhi) did not identify anyone pretrial but later identified Rogers at trial.\
- Police arrested Rogers and Mayes shortly after the robbery; Rogers had $359 and a handgun; a market juice container was found in Mayes’s vehicle.\
- Rogers was tried by jury and convicted of two counts of armed robbery, two counts of felonious assault, and felony-firearm; sentenced to concurrent prison terms for robberies and assaults, consecutive to a two-year felony-firearm term.\
- On appeal Rogers challenged (1) the suggestiveness of the pretrial photo lineup and admissibility of identifications, (2) alleged prosecutorial misconduct (misleading statements, vouching, arguing facts not in evidence, improper objections), and (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel.\
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pretrial photographic lineup suggestive | Lineup was proper and not unduly suggestive | Rogers: his photo stood out (brighter), tainting in-court IDs | Court: lineup not impermissibly suggestive; identifications admissible |
| Prosecutor misstated evidence | Prosecutor’s narrative accurately summarized witnesses’ report to police | Rogers: prosecutor misstated that all four witnesses gave same description | Court: statements viewed in context were not misleading; jury instructions cured any risk |
| Prosecutor vouched for witnesses | Prosecution argued witnesses had no motive to lie based on evidence | Rogers: prosecutor improperly vouched / claimed special knowledge | Court: argument was permissible response to defense attack and based on record; not improper |
| Ineffective assistance for not objecting / suppressing IDs | Prosecution: counsel’s choices reasonable; objections not required when futile | Rogers: counsel failed to object to prosecutor and to further challenge IDs | Court: no deficient performance or prejudice; many objections would be futile given record |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gray, 457 Mich. 107 (1998) (due process bars identifications from impermissibly suggestive procedures)\
- People v. Kurylczyk, 443 Mich. 289 (1993) (photographic arrays admissible if fillers reasonably match defendant)\
- People v. McDade, 301 Mich. App. 343 (2013) (distinguishing suggestiveness vs. weight of identification)\
- People v. Harris, 261 Mich. App. 44 (2004) (standard of review for identification evidence rulings)\
- People v. Hornsby, 251 Mich. App. 462 (2002) (minor photo differences affect weight, not admissibility)\
- People v. Barclay, 208 Mich. App. 670 (1995) (no need to find independent basis once lineup not unduly suggestive)\
- People v. Watson, 245 Mich. App. 572 (2001) (prosecutorial misstatements curable by instruction)\
- People v. Knapp, 244 Mich. App. 361 (2001) (prosecutor may not vouch by claiming special knowledge)\
- People v. Cain, 299 Mich. App. 27 (2012) (prosecutor may argue witnesses lack motive to lie)\
- People v. Ullah, 216 Mich. App. 669 (1996) (prosecutors may use strong language if supported by evidence)\
- People v. Long, 246 Mich. App. 582 (2001) (jury instruction can cure argumentative impropriety)\
- People v. Breidenbach, 489 Mich. 1 (2011) (jurors presumed to follow instructions)\
- People v. Nix, 301 Mich. App. 195 (2013) (ineffective-assistance standard and prejudice test)\
- People v. Heft, 299 Mich. App. 69 (2012) (record-review limits on unpreserved ineffective-assistance claims)\
- People v. Snider, 239 Mich. App. 393 (2000) (counsel not required to make futile objections)\
- People v. Davis, 241 Mich. App. 697 (2000) (failure to identify at preliminary examination is a credibility issue for jury)