People of Michigan v. Jasmine Tanesha-Lasha Robinson
352025
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 1, 2021Background
- House fire on Sept 13, 2018; fire marshal concluded the fire was incendiary (human involvement). Defendants were not proven to have started the fire; prosecutor argued they “had a hand in” it or otherwise concealed involvement.
- Defendants submitted a sworn proof-of-loss to Auto‑Owners claiming $11,341.35 in losses; form contained an express statement that they had not intentionally caused the loss or concealed facts.
- Evidence supporting two alternative theories of fraud: (1) defendants caused or contributed to the fire and concealed that fact; (2) defendants misrepresented the extent of their losses (investigator Colby testified some claimed items were in use elsewhere).
- Defense presented differing rebuttals to each theory (e.g., Laviolette testified she salvaged/kept some items; defendants disputed significance of texts and internet searches and contested proof of involvement in the fire).
- During closing, the prosecutor told jurors they did not have to agree on the actual theory of guilt as long as they unanimously found defendants made a statement to defraud; the trial court gave only a general unanimity instruction.
- Defense counsel did not request a specific unanimity instruction or object to the prosecutor’s statement. On appeal the court found counsel ineffective for failing to request such an instruction, vacated convictions, and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by not giving a specific unanimity instruction when the prosecutor advanced two distinct theories of falsity | People argued a general unanimity instruction was adequate; alternate theories could support a single conviction | Devon argued omission was plain error because jurors might have convicted on different factual bases | Court treated unanimity-instruction claim as waived at trial but found counsel ineffective for not requesting the specific unanimity instruction and vacated convictions |
| Whether defense counsel’s failure to request or object to a specific unanimity instruction constituted ineffective assistance | People implicitly argued no prejudice or trial strategy justified counsel’s conduct | Devon argued counsel performance fell below objective standards and there was reasonable probability of a different outcome | Court held counsel’s failure was objectively unreasonable and prejudicial; new trial required |
| Whether the prosecutor’s closing statement that jurors need not agree on the theory of guilt was harmless | People did not contest prosecutor’s statement as harmless | Defendants argued the statement misstated law and risked nonunanimous verdicts | Court found the prosecutor’s misstatement created significant risk of nonunanimity and, uncorrected, supported ineffective-assistance relief |
| Whether the same relief applies to co-defendant Jasmine (who did not raise the issue on appeal) | People would oppose relief absent preserved error | Jasmine’s counsel also failed to request specific instruction | Court exercised discretionary review and granted Jasmine a new trial on same ineffective-assistance ground |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cooks, 446 Mich 503 (Michigan Supreme Court 1994) (adopts test when specific unanimity instruction is required for alternative acts)
- United States v. Duncan, 850 F.2d 1104 (6th Cir. 1988) (distinct, conceptually separate false statements require jury unanimity on which statement was false)
- Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (U.S. Supreme Court 1991) (addresses jury unanimity jurisprudence at the federal level)
- Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (U.S. Supreme Court 1999) (further discussion of unanimity issues after Schad)
- People v. Jackson, 292 Mich App 583 (Michigan Court of Appeals 2011) (ineffective-assistance two-prong test cited)
- People v. Douglas, 496 Mich 557 (Michigan Supreme Court 2014) (counsel strategy must be objectively reasonable)
- People v. Grayer, 252 Mich App 349 (Michigan Court of Appeals 2002) (prosecutor’s clear misstatement of law that remains uncorrected may deprive defendant of a fair trial)