People of Michigan v. Juan Sandro Cabrera, 352319

Background

On Feb. 16, 2019, Troy Wells was shot and killed outside Room 230 at a Hampton Inn in Holland Township; defendant Juan Sandro Cabrera was convicted by a jury of first‑degree premeditated murder, a gang‑motivated felony (MCL 750.411u), and felony‑firearm.
Cabrera and two companions (including a minor, “JDP”) had brought two semi‑automatic rifles (an AR‑15 and a POF‑USA P‑15) and ammunition into the hotel; security cameras captured the shooting showing a shooter’s left arm/leg and rifle protruding from the doorway.
Witnesses who were in Room 230 (Hanrahan, Garcia, JDP) identified Cabrera as the shooter; prosecution offered multiple hotel video feeds and stills; Detective Tamminga authenticated and identified persons in the footage.
The prosecutor presented gang evidence, including expert testimony from Detective DeYoung about Latin Kings symbols, structure, and how a “future” advances by doing violent acts; evidence tended to show Cabrera was a Latin Kings “future.”
Defense theory was misidentification; on posttrial motion Cabrera argued ineffective assistance (failure to object to ID and gang testimony, failure to investigate video/reconstruction), insufficient evidence on the gang‑motivation element, lack of premeditation, and that autopsy photos were unfairly prejudicial.
The trial court denied a new trial; the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding no reversible trial error and no ineffective assistance under governing standards.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of detective video identifications (Tamminga)	Testimony was proper lay opinion based on personal review, system knowledge, hotel records, and investigation; helpful to the jury.	Tamminga lacked personal knowledge to identify persons from video; counsel ineffective for not objecting.	Admissible under MRE 701 and Fomby; no plain error or prejudice; counsel not ineffective for failing to object to a meritless claim.
Gang expert testimony (DeYoung)	Expert testimony on gang culture, symbols, and motive was relevant to MCL 750.411u elements; permissible under Bynum.	Testimony impermissibly linked gang traits to conduct, was character evidence, and vouched for identity/membership.	Testimony fell within permissible range (Kowalski/Bynum); did not make improper character‑to‑conduct inference; no plain error.
Sufficiency of evidence for gang‑motivated felony	Evidence showed Cabrera was a “future,” used gang symbols, and acted to advance/defend gang interests; motive inferable.	No proof defendant shot Wells because of gang association; motive lacking.	Evidence—testimony of JDP/Garcia about membership, demeanor, weapons readiness, and confrontation—was sufficient to support gang‑motivation verdict.
Failure to investigate / reconstructed video	Prosecutor’s video and witnesses established identity; defense strategy to avoid emphasizing video was reasonable.	Counsel should have performed frame‑by‑frame/video reconstruction and used defendant’s reconstruction to show another shooter.	Counsel’s investigation and strategic choice were reasonable; reconstruction relied on inconsistent assumptions and was inadmissible; no ineffective assistance.
Premeditation and lesser‑offense instruction	Circumstantial evidence (rifles concealed/loaded, positioning at door, retrieval of rifle, commands to move, aim and multiple shots) showed deliberation and premeditation.	No prior relationship or time to premeditate; counsel ineffective for not requesting second‑degree instruction.	Sufficient circumstantial evidence supported premeditation; counsel reasonably pursued identity defense and decline of lesser‑offense instruction was strategic, not ineffective.
Autopsy photos admissibility	Photos corroborated and aided medical testimony about wounds, trajectories, and cause/manner of death; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice.	Images cumulative after ME’s testimony and unduly prejudicial.	Photos admissible as corroborative and explanatory (MRE 401/402/403); not so gruesome as to require exclusion; counsel not ineffective for not objecting.
Cumulative error	No single actual errors were shown on appeal, so there is nothing prejudicial to aggregate; overall fairness unaffected.	Multiple small errors cumulatively undermined conviction.	No actual errors identified; cumulative‑error claim fails.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Fomby, 300 Mich. App. 46 (lay witness may identify persons in video when witness has special familiarity and it aids jury understanding)
People v. Bynum, 496 Mich. 610 (permissible scope and limits of gang‑culture expert testimony; may explain motive but not link trait to specific act)
People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain‑error standard for unpreserved appellate claims)
People v. McFarlane, 325 Mich. App. 507 (standard of review for evidentiary rulings and expert testimony interpretation)
People v. Mills, 450 Mich. 61 (autopsy photos admissible to corroborate medical testimony; gruesomeness alone not dispositive)
People v. Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich. 38 (defense counsel duty to conduct reasonable investigation or make reasonable strategic decision)
People v. Uphaus, 278 Mich. App. 174 (two‑part ineffective assistance test: deficient performance + prejudice)
People v. Clark, 330 Mich. App. 392 (sufficiency review: evidence viewed in light most favorable to prosecution)