People of Michigan v. Jabari Hassen Regains
330129
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 20, 2017Background
- Defendants David Coleman and Jabari Regains were tried jointly (separate juries) for the December 28, 2014 robbery, home invasion, and fatal shooting of William Fultz in a Detroit apartment; both convicted of first‑degree felony murder (larceny), first‑degree home invasion, armed robbery, felon in possession, and felony‑firearm.
- Cooperator Sharnethia Wells (pleaded to second‑degree murder) testified she arranged the robbery, left doors unsecured, and identified Coleman and Regains as the robbers; Parrott (apartment resident) corroborated Wells’s presence and described the intrusion and gunshots but could not identify the assailants.
- Ballistics testing recovered two distinct bullets from Fultz, consistent with two different firearms; phone records and witness statements (and admissions to third parties) corroborated links between Wells and the defendants and Coleman’s involvement.
- Trial court admitted crime‑scene and autopsy photographs (including some depicting the victim’s nudity) and the prosecution argued both defendants fired weapons; Coleman raised additional prosecutorial‑misconduct claims in a pro se Standard 4 brief.
- Sentences: both received life without parole for felony murder plus additional concurrent and consecutive terms; appellate court affirmed convictions but remanded to correct clerical errors in Regains’s judgment of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence (identity and role) | Prosecution: testimony (Wells, Parrott), phone records, witness admissions, and ballistics sufficiently identify and link both defendants to the crimes. | Defendants: evidence insufficient to prove their identities/roles; witnesses were impaired or biased; Wells was not present during shooting. | Affirmed—viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, juries could reasonably find identity and role proven beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Admissibility of photographs (crime scene & autopsy) | Prosecution: photos were relevant, corroborative, and instructive about condition and injuries. | Defendants: photos (including nudity) were gruesome and unduly prejudicial under MRE 403. | Affirmed—trial court acted within discretion; probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; some photos excluded at trial. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (Coleman, Standard 4) | Prosecutor’s statements were fair argument based on evidence and reasonable inferences (e.g., phone/vehicle links, ballistics). | Coleman: prosecutor misstated evidence in opening/closing (vehicle description, who fought, that both shot victim), denying a fair trial. | Affirmed—claims unpreserved; remarks read in context were permissible argument or minor misstatements cured by jury instructions and not plain error. |
| Clerical sentencing error (Regains) | N/A (court observed errors) | N/A | Remanded for ministerial correction of judgment of sentence to reflect sentences accurately. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Carines, 460 Mich 750 (1999) (elements and inferences for felony murder and malice)
- People v Mills, 450 Mich 61 (1995) (MRE 403 balancing; gruesome photographs may be admissible if probative)
- People v Davis, 241 Mich App 697 (2000) (positive identification by witness can support conviction)
- People v Dunigan, 299 Mich App 579 (2013) (credibility and weight of ID testimony are for jury)
- People v Hoffman, 205 Mich App 1 (1994) (photographs admissible if necessary or instructive)
- People v Flowers, 222 Mich App 732 (1997) (autopsy photos relevant to show nature/extent of injuries)
- People v Bahoda, 448 Mich 261 (1995) (standard for prosecutorial misconduct and permissible argument)
- People v Wolverton, 227 Mich App 72 (1997) (prosecutor’s good‑faith statements about evidence do not automatically require reversal)