People of Michigan v. Jahan Satati Green
332835
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Between 2006–2012 defendant Green ran a prostitution enterprise in southeastern Michigan; he was charged and convicted by a jury of two counts transporting a person for prostitution, two counts accepting the earnings of a prostitute, and criminal conspiracy (conducting a criminal enterprise).
- Defendant was sentenced as a third habitual offender to 20–40 years on each conviction; he appealed raising instructional, prosecutorial, evidentiary, and sentencing-guideline scoring issues.
- The acceptance-of-earnings counts charged Green with "living on or deriving support from" the earnings of two prostitutes (MCL 750.457), not the statutory subsection addressing taking money "without consideration."
- A prosecution witness (one victim) had received immunity and performed administrative/secretarial tasks for defendant’s front corporation; defense argued she was an accomplice requiring an accomplice-witness instruction.
- At sentencing the court scored PRV 5 and OV 12; defendant challenged point assessments for prior misdemeanors (PRV 5) and contemporaneous felonious acts (OV 12).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction for accepting earnings (MCL 750.457) | Model instruction inapplicable because statute has two distinct prongs; non-standard instruction fairly presented elements of the charged prong | Non-standard instruction omitted "consideration" and therefore failed to instruct on an element of MCL 750.457 | Affirmed — M Crim JI 20.35 was inapplicable; consideration is not element of the "lives or derives support" prong and the non-standard instruction was adequate |
| Accomplice-witness instruction | Not necessary because witness credibility issues (immunity, role) were exposed by cross-examination | Trial court abused discretion by refusing accomplice instruction because the witness may have been an accomplice | Affirmed — credibility issues were plainly presented on cross-examination; no instruction required (People v Young) |
| Prosecutor’s remark that evidence was “undisputed” in closing | Comment did not misstate burden or constitute misconduct | Remark shifted burden, prejudiced defendant; mistrial should have been granted | Affirmed — remark not improper per Callon; defendant failed to preserve issue and abandoned parts of the argument |
| Evidentiary rulings (multiple claimed errors) | Exclusion limited impeachment, prevented showing motive to lie, improperly admitted other-acts and computer evidence | Rulings were within discretion; impeachment and immunity issues were explored; other-acts admitted for plan/system; computer foundation proper | Affirmed — most claims abandoned or without merit; MRE 404(b) properly applied; foundational and cross‑examination opportunities provided |
| PRV 5 scoring (prior misdemeanors) | PSIR supports only 3–4 misdemeanors so PRV 5 should be 10 points | Scoring at 20 points was supported by PSIR | Court agrees error on PRV 5 (should be 10) but harmless — PRV level unchanged and no sentencing relief warranted |
| OV 12 scoring (contemporaneous felonious acts) | Defendant’s enterprise convictions encompass the acts; no 24‑hour separate acts shown | Testimony showed multiple separate transports (including uncharged acts) within relevant timeframe justifying 25 points | Affirmed — preponderance of evidence supported 25 points for OV 12 (multiple separate felonious acts within relevant timeframe) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lukity, 460 Mich. 484 (court considers whether instructional error was outcome-determinative)
- People v. Kowalski, 489 Mich. 488 (review of jury instructions as a whole)
- People v. Dumas, 454 Mich. 390 (non‑standard instructions permissible if fair and protective of rights)
- People v. Young, 472 Mich. 130 (accomplice‑witness instruction not required where credibility issues are plainly presented)
- People v. Callon, 256 Mich. App. 312 (prosecutor may characterize evidence as "undisputed" without shifting burden)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain‑error standard for unpreserved claims)
- People v. Light, 290 Mich. App. 717 (OV 12 looks to separate acts that did not establish the sentencing offense)
- People v. Hardy, 494 Mich. 430 (standard of review for scoring guidelines; factual findings by preponderance)