People of Michigan v. Joshua Allen Robinson
330046
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 11, 2017Background
- Defendant Joshua Robinson charged; trial set after preliminary exam testimony from a complaining witness who did not appear at trial.
- Prosecutor sought to admit preliminary-exam testimony under confrontation-unavailable exception but trial court required showing of due diligence.
- Detective Carolyn Manners began locating efforts very late (specific actions mostly on Oct. 15), about five days before trial, despite last contact with the witness in April and information indicating the witness had moved to Virginia.
- Manners searched Detroit-area institutions, used LEIN and license-history addresses, contacted Chesapeake PD about a forwarding address, and later checked Facebook after the hearing.
- Trial court found efforts unreasonable for focusing on Detroit, waiting until days before trial, and not conducting similar checks in Virginia or on social media; it denied use of preliminary testimony and dismissed the case without prejudice.
- Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding lack of prosecutorial due diligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecution exercised due diligence to procure an unavailable witness so preliminary-exam testimony could be used | Detective Manners did everything reasonable to locate witness, including phone messages, LEIN/license checks, local institutional checks, and contacting Chesapeake PD | Manners’ efforts were untimely and misdirected (focused on Detroit though witness likely in Virginia); she failed to check Virginia agencies or social media | Trial court did not abuse discretion: efforts were not reasonable under the circumstances; preliminary testimony excluded |
| Whether waiting until days before trial violates due-diligence standard | Late efforts were sufficient because detectives made reasonable searches when they did | Waiting until days before trial (despite a months-old trial date) was unreasonable and undermined good-faith search | Waiting until days before trial supported finding of lack of due diligence |
| Whether searches should include jurisdictional coordination (Virginia) and social media | Not strictly required to exhaust remote-jurisdiction channels or social media | Reasonable efforts should include inquiries in the jurisdiction where the witness was likely located and checking social media as a modern locator tool | Court endorsed considering jurisdictional contacts and social media as reasonable factors |
| Whether dismissal without prejudice was appropriate after exclusion of preliminary testimony | Prosecutor argued they could proceed but were barred without testimony | Given exclusion and inability to try, dismissal without prejudice was proper | Dismissal without prejudice affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bean, 457 Mich. 677 (Mich. 1998) (defines due-diligence reasonableness test for producing witnesses and finds limited telephonic/local efforts insufficient)
- People v. Dye, 431 Mich. 58 (Mich. 1988) (insufficient efforts despite extensive interstate investigative steps)
- People v. Eccles, 260 Mich. App. 379 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (upheld due diligence where police had recent contact with witness and contacted out-of-jurisdiction authorities)
- People v. Briseno, 211 Mich. App. 11 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995) (upheld due diligence where officers checked other states and federal authorities)
- People v. Seewald, 499 Mich. 111 (Mich. 2016) (standard that trial-court due-diligence determinations reviewed for abuse of discretion)