People of Michigan v. Jehnel Jean Pore, 353704

Background

On Dec. 10, 2019, Michigan State Police recovered a black/white wallet behind a cinderblock in the basement of a house; the wallet contained methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia.
Kibler and Newland identified the wallet as belonging to defendant Jehnel Jean Poré; Trooper Rogers did not fingerprint the wallet but tied it to defendant based on investigation.
Defendant called 911 reporting she had been assaulted by Kibler; she admitted prior recent drug use and testified she and Kibler sometimes stored drugs in that wallet but claimed the wallet had been removed on Dec. 7.
A jury convicted Poré of possession of methamphetamine (second offense) and acquitted her of a domestic-violence charge; she was sentenced to 1–20 years.
On appeal Poré challenged (1) the sufficiency of the evidence, (2) multiple instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct (including questions after she invoked the Fifth), and (3) ineffective assistance of trial counsel for various strategic and preparation failures.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: evidence was sufficient; no plain prosecutorial misconduct; counsel’s choices were strategic and not shown to be deficient on the record.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Poré)	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to prove knowing possession of methamphetamine	Witness ID of the wallet as defendant’s and defendant’s own testimony that she stored drugs in that wallet supported a rational finding of possession and knowledge	Wallet could have been removed earlier or placed by other visitors; defendant denied possession on Dec. 9–10	Affirmed — viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, a rational juror could find knowing possession beyond a reasonable doubt
Prosecutorial misconduct — burden shift and improper comments	Prosecutor’s questions and closing attacked credibility and highlighted weaknesses in defendant’s theory but did not shift burden	Prosecutor improperly shifted burden and misstated evidence (e.g., suggesting defendant first blamed Kibler only at trial)	Affirmed — comments attacked credibility and were permissible; no burden-shifting or unsupported factual assertion requiring reversal
Prosecutor’s questions after defendant invoked the Fifth Amendment on cross	Questions sought confirmation of testimony already given and were relevant to possession; defendant had waived no protections by testifying and could rebut on redirect	Prosecutor knowingly asked questions designed to elicit invocation and prejudice jury; comparable to Giacalone misconduct	Affirmed — distinguishable from Giacalone; questions were logically relevant and permissible; any prejudice could be addressed on redirect
Ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to cross-examine, admit texts, move in limine, prepare witness, object)	Defense strategy (attack investigation sufficiency; be candid about drug use to preserve credibility) justified choices; many complaints lack factual record or involve strategic tradeoffs	Counsel failed to pursue lines (witnesses about other users), admit texts, seek limiting orders, prepare defendant, or object to alleged misconduct — prejudicing the defense	Affirmed — defendant failed to show deficient performance or prejudice on the record; many claims lacked factual predicate or were reasonable trial strategy

Key Cases Cited

People v. Meissner, 294 Mich. App. 438 (evidence sufficiency standard)
People v. Oros, 502 Mich. 229 (deference to trier-of-fact credibility determinations)
People v. Mehall, 454 Mich. 1 (credibility and appellate review)
People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain-error standard for forfeited issues)
Raffel v. United States, 271 U.S. 494 (waiver of Fifth Amendment when defendant testifies)
People v. Giacalone, 399 Mich. 642 (prosecutor calling witness expected to invoke privilege)
People v. Evans, 335 Mich. App. 76 (limits on aggressive impeachment/cross-examination)
Smith v. Spisak, 558 U.S. 139 (IAC prejudice standard)
People v. Hoag, 460 Mich. 1 (need to establish factual predicate for IAC claims)