People of Michigan v. Kirk Antonio Roston, 328726

Background

Defendant Kirk Roston was tried by jury and convicted of: possession with intent to deliver <50g cocaine; possession <25g heroin; felon in possession of a firearm; felon in possession of ammunition; and possession of marijuana. Sentences were imposed as described in the opinion.
Police obtained a search warrant for Roston’s residence based on an affidavit by Detective Daniel Main that relied on a confidential informant and two controlled buys observed/controlled by the affiant. The search yielded drugs, a loaded handgun in a bedroom closet, and ammunition.
Defendant sought production of the confidential informant, a Franks hearing to challenge the warrant affidavit, and argued various constitutional violations (due process, Confrontation Clause, Brady, right to jury, right to present a defense). Defense counsel moved for the Franks hearing and demanded the informant’s identity.
Trial court denied production of the informant and denied a Franks evidentiary hearing; the warrant was executed and evidence introduced at trial.
On appeal defendant raised issues about informant disclosure, Brady, Franks hearing, warrant sufficiency/specificity, jury-right/right-to-present-defense, ineffective assistance, and sufficiency of evidence for the firearm/ammunition counts. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Roston)	Held
Denial of informant production / Due process & Confrontation Clause	Nonproduction proper because informant testimony was neither shown to be relevant nor introduced; no testimonial statements used at trial.	Trial court should have produced informant; his identity/statements were necessary to confront witnesses and obtain a fair trial.	Affirmed — defendant failed to show informant’s testimony would be relevant, helpful, or testimonial; no confrontation or due-process violation.
Brady (failure to disclose exculpatory evidence)	No Brady violation because no showing the undisclosed informant possessed favorable or material evidence that would undermine the verdict.	Prosecution’s nondisclosure of informant identitiy/statements suppressed material, exculpatory evidence.	Affirmed — defendant did not demonstrate materiality or favorable evidence from informant.
Franks hearing (challenge to warrant affidavit)	No hearing required; defendant’s allegations were conclusory with no offer of proof and probable cause remained on independent observations and controlled buys.	Affidavit contained false/recklessly misleading statements; defendant made substantial showing entitling him to a Franks hearing.	Affirmed — defendant failed to make the required preliminary showing of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard and did not show false statements were necessary to probable cause.
Warrant sufficiency / particularity / structural flaws	Warrant and affidavit provided probable cause via controlled buys and affiant’s observations; items to be seized were sufficiently particular as related to drug trafficking; good-faith exception applies.	Affidavit lacked informant reliability details, did not show drugs would be in the home, was overbroad and structurally defective.	Affirmed — magistrate had substantial basis for probable cause; specificity adequate; even if invalid, good-faith exception would apply.
Right to jury / right to present defense	No deprivation: defendant received a jury trial; informant was irrelevant to charged counts and rules of evidence permit excluding irrelevant testimony.	Denial of informant production deprived jury of consideration of all evidence and defendant of his right to present a complete defense.	Affirmed — claim abandoned/undeveloped; informant testimony not shown to be material or necessary; no prejudice.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	Counsel reasonably raised motions (Franks and informant demand); failing to press meritless objections was not ineffective.	Counsel ineffective for not objecting to confrontation, warrant, jury-right, and presentation-of-defense denials.	Affirmed — claims lacked merit on the record; no prejudice shown.
Sufficiency of evidence for felon-in-possession counts	Prosecution presented evidence supporting constructive possession: handgun/ammunition located in bedroom/kitchen; defendant admitted knowledge of handgun; defendant was near the handgun when officers entered.	Evidence insufficient because defendant was not in actual possession and residence/ownership questions undermine constructive-possession inference.	Affirmed — viewed favorably to prosecutor, reasonable inferences support constructive possession beyond reasonable doubt.

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution must disclose materially favorable evidence)
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (preliminary showing required for evidentiary hearing challenging affidavit truthfulness)
People v. Underwood, 447 Mich. 695 (informer privilege exception; in camera production when informant testimony may be relevant and helpful)
People v. Henry (After Remand), 305 Mich. App. 127 (standard for ordering informant production)
People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain error standard for unpreserved constitutional claims)
People v. Waclawski, 286 Mich. App. 634 (probable cause and magistrate deference; independent verification of informant)
People v. Whitfield, 461 Mich. 441 (common-sense reading of affidavits; probable cause standard)
People v. Kazmierczak, 461 Mich. 411 (probable cause relates to evidence of a crime in a place; need not be particular to specific offense)
People v. Hellstrom, 264 Mich. App. 187 (good-faith exception and warrant particularity analysis)