People of Michigan v. Jason Robert Martin
330678
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 25, 2017Background
- Defendant Jason Robert Martin was convicted by a jury of seven counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (two counts under MCL 750.520b(1)(a) and five counts under MCL 750.520b(1)(b)(ii)) and one count of accosting a child for an immoral purpose.
- Sentences: concurrent terms of 25 years–450 months for the two (a) convictions, 180–450 months for the (b)(ii) convictions, and 23–48 months for accosting a child.
- Defendant argued prosecutorial misconduct for eliciting testimony about assaults in Toledo, Ohio (outside the charged Luna Pier, Michigan incidents).
- He alternatively argued ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to that testimony.
- Defendant also challenged the lifetime electronic monitoring condition of sentence as cruel and unusual punishment and an unreasonable search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct by eliciting out‑of‑state misconduct testimony | Prosecution did not elicit inadmissible testimony or create a pattern of improper questioning | Prosecution elicited testimony about assaults in Toledo, not the charged Luna Pier incidents | No prosecutorial misconduct; most references were unresponsive answers by the victim, not solicited by prosecutor; claim fails |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object to alleged prosecutorial misconduct | Counsel was effective; objections would have lacked merit | Trial counsel unreasonably failed to object to prejudicial testimony | No ineffective assistance; any objection would have been futile because prosecution’s questioning was not improper |
| Preservation / standard of review for unobjected issues | Unpreserved claims reviewed for plain error affecting substantial rights | Defendant’s claims unpreserved, request plain‑error review | Court applied plain‑error standard and found no reversible error |
| Lifetime electronic monitoring: Eighth and Fourth Amendment challenge | Monitoring is not cruel and unusual nor an unreasonable search under controlling precedent | Lifetime monitoring is unconstitutional punishment/search | Challenge rejected under stare decisis following People v Hallak; lifetime monitoring upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Brown, 279 Mich. App. 116 (court reviews preserved issues de novo but unpreserved claims for plain error)
- People v Roscoe, 303 Mich. App. 633 (plain‑error review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain error requires error, plainness, and effect on substantial rights)
- People v Dobek, 274 Mich. App. 58 (prosecutorial misconduct test: denial of fair and impartial trial; evaluate remarks in context)
- People v Watson, 245 Mich. App. 572 (reversal requires prejudice or pattern of eliciting inadmissible testimony)
- People v Jackson, 313 Mich. App. 409 (unresponsive testimony by prosecution witness generally not prosecutorial error absent advance knowledge or encouragement)
- People v Johnson, 315 Mich. App. 163 (appellate review of ineffective‑assistance claims limited to record‑apparent mistakes for unpreserved claims)
- People v Schrauben, 314 Mich. App. 181 (standards for mixed questions of fact and law in ineffective‑assistance review)
- People v Vaughn, 491 Mich. 642 (applying Strickland standard for ineffective assistance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (counsel must be objectively reasonable and prejudice must be shown)
- People v Thomas, 260 Mich. App. 450 (no ineffective assistance where objection would have been futile)
- People v Bowling, 299 Mich. App. 552 (preservation requirement for sentencing constitutionality claims)
- People v Hallak, 310 Mich. App. 555 (lifetime electronic monitoring upheld in similar factual context; binding under stare decisis)