People of Michigan v. Keith Dion Wheat
333925
Mich. Ct. App.Nov 9, 2017Background
- Victim (PB) testified that at ~5:00 a.m. July 2, 2013, a man entered her apartment, forced her to perform fellatio, licked her ear, and then left; she fled to a neighbor and reported the assault.
- Officers collected PB’s shirt and two mouth/ear swabs (one by responding officer, one during nurse examiner); the ear swab tested positive for saliva and male DNA that matched defendant.
- An earlier buccal swab and the shirt were not sent to the crime lab until midtrial discovery; testing of the earlier mouth swab showed the possible presence of seminal fluid but no sperm and was not DNA-typed.
- Defendant admitted presence in the building and an encounter with PB, claiming a hallway altercation in which he spat on PB (explaining saliva on her ear) and denied sexual assault.
- Jury credited PB’s testimony, convicted defendant of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and first-degree home invasion; defendant appealed contesting identification sufficiency and alleged prosecutorial misconduct for late disclosure and argument about seminal-fluid evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of identification evidence | DNA from ear swab plus PB’s in-court ID and testimony support conviction | Inconsistent ID, memory lapses, failure to ID in photo lineup render ID unreliable | Affirmed: viewed in light most favorable to prosecution, jury could credit PB and DNA linked defendant to ear saliva |
| Weight of inconsistent witness height descriptions | Height inconsistencies not dispositive when DNA links defendant to saliva on victim | Height discrepancies undermine presence of defendant | Affirmed: jury may reject some witness estimates; DNA and other evidence sufficient |
| Late testing / disclosure of buccal swab and shirt | Prosecutor promptly notified defense once she learned testing had not occurred and had items tested immediately | Late disclosure prejudiced defense (contradicted opening statement), warranted mistrial or curative relief | Affirmed: prosecutor and Sheriff’s Office did not intentionally delay; court’s remedy (allow cross-examination) was within discretion and not an abuse |
| Prosecutor’s closing argument about seminal fluid and DNA certainty | Prosecutor may argue reasonable inferences from evidence (seminal fluid supports assault narrative; DNA statistics show rarity of match) | Prosecutor misstated evidence by saying seminal fluid (rather than possible seminal fluid) and overstated conclusiveness | Affirmed: comment was imperfect but not reversible; evidence showed possible seminal fluid and highly probative DNA statistics supporting guilt |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gaines, 306 Mich. App. 289 (2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- People v. Solloway, 316 Mich. App. 174 (2016) (circumstantial evidence and inferences can support conviction)
- People v. Bass, 317 Mich. App. 241 (2016) (identity is an element of every offense)
- People v. Davis, 241 Mich. App. 697 (2000) (positive witness identification may suffice for conviction)
- People v. Fletcher, 260 Mich. App. 531 (2004) (jury may credit identification despite inconsistencies)
- People v. Dobek, 274 Mich. App. 58 (2007) (standard for reviewing prosecutorial misconduct)
- People v. Bennett, 290 Mich. App. 465 (2010) (preservation rule for prosecutorial misconduct requires contemporaneous objection)
- People v. Callon, 256 Mich. App. 312 (2003) (plain-error reversal standard)
- People v. Aldrich, 246 Mich. App. 101 (2001) (prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- People v. Marshall, 493 Mich. 1020 (2013) (prosecutor may argue reasonable inferences from evidence)
- People v. Watson, 245 Mich. App. 572 (2001) (prosecutor may not argue facts not in evidence or mischaracterize evidence)
- People v. Jackson, 292 Mich. App. 583 (2011) (trial court’s discretion in remedying discovery violations)