People of Michigan v. Jomo Thomas
326806
| Mich. Ct. App. | Sep 27, 2016Background
- Defendant Jomo Thomas was convicted by a jury of two counts of first‑degree premeditated murder for the January 4–5, 2014 killings of his estranged wife, Tocarra Sims, and her boyfriend; both victims died of blunt‑force trauma consistent with a two‑by‑four with nails found in the house.
- Key circumstantial evidence: Tocarra had a PPO and had filed for divorce; defendant forcibly entered her home days earlier and threatened her; cell‑phone location data and nearby surveillance placed defendant’s girlfriend’s car in the area the night of the offense.
- An inmate, Gary Lewis, testified that defendant confessed in jail and provided several details corroborated by other evidence; Lewis also made some unresponsive statements about defendant’s prior assault history.
- The prosecution introduced other‑acts evidence: a 2008 assault by defendant on a former partner (Cassandra Arnold), a December 31, 2013 forcible entry/argument with Tocarra, and testimony by a probation officer about a probation‑violation warrant issued after Tocarra’s report.
- Trial court admitted the other‑acts evidence under MCL 768.27b (domestic‑violence prior acts) and MRE 404(b) and found Lewis competent to testify; defendant was sentenced to life without parole on each count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 2008 assault (Arnold) | Evidence admissible under MCL 768.27b as prior acts of domestic violence—relevant to propensity, motive, capacity | Admission violated MRE 404(b) (impermissible propensity evidence) | Admitted; statute allows prior domestic‑violence acts for any relevant purpose subject to MRE 403; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice |
| Admissibility of Dec 31, 2013 argument | Relevant to motive, intent and knowledge of entry method; noncharacter purpose under MRE 404(b) | Too dissimilar/nonviolent to be relevant to murder motive or identity | Admitted; relevant to motive/intent and showed knowledge of side‑door entry; similarity not required for motive evidence |
| Probation officer testimony (warrant issued) | Testimony used to show defendant’s motive and the reason officer acted; not hearsay | Testimony was hearsay and impermissible prior‑bad‑act evidence | Admitted; not hearsay because offered to explain officer’s action, not to prove truth of victim’s statement; relevant to motive |
| Competency and reliance on inmate confession (Lewis) | Lewis competent; his corroborated details made his confession admissible | Lewis’ bizarre statements and inaccuracies rendered him incompetent and unreliable; should be excluded | Competent; presumption of competency not overcome—credibility for jury; corroboration bolsters reliability |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Starr, 457 Mich. 490 (discusses MRE 404(b) permissible noncharacter purposes)
- People v. Sabin, 463 Mich. 43 (framework for admitting other‑acts evidence under MRE 404(b) and MRE 403)
- People v. VanderVliet, 444 Mich. 52 (evidentiary balancing for other‑acts evidence)
- People v. Musser, 494 Mich. 337 (definition and treatment of hearsay; statements offered for non‑truth purpose are not hearsay)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain‑error standard and prerequisites)
- People v. Watson, 245 Mich. App. 572 (competency and relevance of prior acts for motive)
- People v. Unger, 278 Mich. App. 210 (motive evidence in murder prosecutions and curative jury instructions)
- People v. Bennett, 290 Mich. App. 465 (circumstantial evidence and sufficiency review)
- People v. Dunigan, 299 Mich. App. 579 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- People v. Lemmon, 456 Mich. 625 (weight and credibility of testimony; when impeachment may undermine probative value)