People of Michigan v. Keante Martez Kiya
340965
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 23, 2019Background
- Defendant Keante Martez Kiya convicted in Jackson Circuit Court for selling heroin after undercover officer purchased heroin from him.
- Prosecutor, in opening and closing, made emotional statements characterizing heroin as a countywide scourge and referred to "heroin dealers" as "dealers of death."
- Defense did not object to the prosecutor’s statements at trial; the issue was raised on appeal as unpreserved prosecutorial misconduct.
- Majority found the prosecutor’s remarks improperly appealed to the jury’s civic duty and affected the trial; dissent (Judge Boonstra) would find no plain error requiring reversal.
- Dissent applied the plain-error standard from People v Carines and emphasized jury-instruction cure, the strength of the evidence (undercover purchase), and the absence of a contemporaneous objection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor’s statements constituted prosecutorial misconduct requiring reversal | Prosecutor argued statements were proper advocacy and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial | Defendant argued prosecutor’s civic-duty appeals and denigrating language injected prejudice and warranted reversal | Majority: statements improper and warranted reversal; Dissent: would find no plain error and would affirm |
| Whether unpreserved objections are reviewed for plain error | Plaintiff: contemporaneous objection required; absent it, plain-error standard applies | Defendant: although unpreserved, statements were so prejudicial as to overcome plain-error threshold | Court applied Carines plain-error framework; majority concluded threshold met, dissent disagreed |
| Whether jury instructions cured any prejudice | Plaintiff: jury instructed that arguments are not evidence and must not be influenced by sympathy or prejudice | Defendant: civic-duty appeals went beyond case-specific evidence and were not fully cured by instructions | Dissent: instruction presumed followed and could cure error if timely objection made; majority found instructions insufficient |
| Whether evidence of guilt was strong enough to preclude reversal | Plaintiff: strong evidence (undercover officer purchase) supports conviction despite rhetoric | Defendant: prosecutorial misconduct may have materially affected verdict despite evidence | Dissent: evidence was strong and misconduct did not deprive defendant of fair trial; majority nonetheless reversed based on misconduct impact |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain-error standard for unpreserved constitutional errors)
- People v. Cain, 498 Mich. 108 (application of plain-error review)
- People v. Schutte, 240 Mich. App. 713 (evaluate prosecutor remarks in context)
- People v. Bahoda, 448 Mich. 261 (limits on prosecutor appeals to civic duty and denigrating remarks)
- People v. Abraham, 256 Mich. App. 265 (presumption that jurors follow instructions)
- People v. Callon, 256 Mich. App. 312 (effects of failure to object and possible curative measures)
- People v. Riley, 465 Mich. 442 (trial court remedies for improper prosecutorial remarks)