People of Michigan v. Larry Duane Currington, 331954

Defendant Larry Currington was convicted by jury of multiple offenses arising from three separate armed sexual assaults (five counts CSC-I, two counts CSC-II), kidnappings, extortion, armed robbery, assaults, and unlawfully driving away vehicles. Sentenced as a fourth habitual offender to life and extensive consecutive and concurrent terms.
The assaults occurred in victims’ vehicles while defendant was armed with a bladed weapon; victims identified defendant and DNA from one victim matched defendant.
Before trial proofs began, defendant told the court he wanted to represent himself because counsel had not obtained cable "On Demand" rental records supporting an alibi that defendant was babysitting on one assault date. Counsel agreed to pursue the records and defendant said he would accept continued representation if counsel vigorously pursued the alibi. The court found no unequivocal request to proceed pro se and did not further inquire.
During trial, police detectives testified that an individual referred to as "Mr. Frank" (Frank Reed) had been interviewed and cleared by the investigative team. Defense objected as hearsay; the court admitted the testimony as permissible officer-to-officer investigative background.
Defendant later reiterated complaints about counsel’s cross-examination choices but did not again make an unequivocal pro se request; he was convicted and appealed, challenging denial of self-representation and admission of the detectives’ testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred in denying defendant's request to proceed pro se	Court properly declined because defendant's request was not unequivocal; counsel agreed to pursue the alibi and defendant accepted continued representation	Trial court improperly denied his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation	Denial affirmed: request was not unequivocal; no further Anderson colloquy required; counsel pursued alibi defense
Whether detectives' testimony that another person was "cleared" was hearsay and violated Confrontation Clause	Testimony explained investigatory course and effect on officers (not offered for truth); admissible; alternatively harmless given identifications and DNA	Testimony was hearsay/testimonial and violated Confrontation Clause	Admission affirmed: testimony was non-hearsay background or, if erroneous, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt

People v. Russell, 471 Mich. 182 (discussing waiver of counsel and review standards)
People v. Kurylczyk, 443 Mich. 289 (clear-error standard for factual findings)
Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, 528 U.S. 152 (balancing right to self-representation and other interests)
People v. Williams, 470 Mich. 634 (Anderson factors for waiver of counsel)
People v. Anderson, 398 Mich. 361 (requirement for unequivocal waiver and colloquy)
People v. Jackson, 292 Mich. App. 583 (preservation rules for confrontation objections)
People v. Lane, 308 Mich. App. 38 (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
People v. Katt, 468 Mich. 272 (de novo review of legal questions on evidence)
People v. Chambers, 277 Mich. App. 1 (out-of-court statements admissible to show effect on hearer/why police acted)
People v. Burns, 494 Mich. 104 (harmless-error standard for evidentiary error)
People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain-error test for appellate review)