People of Michigan v. John Buchan Crawford II
335147
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jan 9, 2018Background
- On Feb. 14, 2016 defendant entered Lansing Mall wearing full black tactical gear and carrying what appeared to be an assault rifle, a pistol, and a baton; the firearms were airsoft with painted-over orange tips.
- Mall patrons were frightened, called 911, and mall security asked defendant to leave; police then confronted him.
- Officers told defendant he was not under arrest but needed to detain him to search for weapons; defendant hesitated, tensed, pulled his arms inward, and resisted when officers attempted to handcuff him.
- Officers performed a takedown; defendant continued to resist by kicking and grabbing an officer’s leg.
- At trial the prosecution introduced witness testimony, 911 calls, mall and body-camera video; defendant testified he did not resist but blamed officer coordination.
- Jury convicted defendant of resisting and obstructing and disturbing the peace; sentenced to concurrent 30-day weekend jail terms and 18 months’ probation; defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial cross‑examination invoking mass‑shooting events | Questioning was relevant to defendant’s knowledge and to show why officers reasonably detained him | Cross‑examination was misconduct and prejudicial | Held: No misconduct; questioning was relevant and topic had been repeatedly introduced at trial; plain‑error review fails |
| Jury instruction on resisting and obstructing (alleged outdated instruction) | Instruction properly stated elements of resisting and obstructing | Instruction omitted express guidance on lawfulness of detention; deprived defendant of fair trial | Held: Waived by defense counsel’s express acceptance; alternatively, instruction was proper because defendant never contested detention lawfulness |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object to cross‑examination / instruction | N/A (prosecution) | Trial counsel ineffective for not objecting to cross‑examination and not requesting instruction on detention lawfulness | Held: No ineffective assistance—questions and instruction were proper and objections would have been futile |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain‑error standard for unpreserved claims)
- People v. Rodriguez, 251 Mich. App. 10 (prosecutorial‑misconduct review in context)
- People v. Aldrich, 246 Mich. App. 101 (plain‑error review of jury instructions)
- People v. McGhee, 268 Mich. App. 600 (jury must be instructed on material issues supported by evidence)
- People v. Kowalski, 489 Mich. 488 (waiver by affirmatively accepting jury instructions)
- People v. Gist, 188 Mich. App. 610 (counsel not ineffective for failing to raise futile objection)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (officers may detain for officer safety when reasonable suspicion of danger exists)
- People v. Vanmdenberg, 307 Mich. App. 57 (lawfulness of detention as jury question when raised)