People of Michigan v. Luis Guillermo Figueroa
333300
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 10, 2017Background
- Victim was defendant Luis Figueroa’s former girlfriend and mother of his child; during an argument he grabbed and shook her and took her cell phone; a neighbor called police.
- Figueroa was arrested; while in jail he called the complainant repeatedly and, in recorded calls, urged her not to appear in court and discussed paying her and avoiding service.
- The prosecutor served the complainant with a subpoena three weeks before trial; she failed to appear at the preliminary exam and the jury trial.
- The prosecutor moved to admit the complainant’s out-of-court statements under MRE 804(b)(6) (forfeiture by wrongdoing); the trial court granted the motion and admitted testimony from the investigating detective about what the complainant told police.
- A jury convicted Figueroa of domestic assault, third offense; he was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 5–15 years.
- Figueroa appealed, challenging (1) the prosecution’s due diligence in securing the witness and (2) whether his Sixth Amendment confrontation right was forfeited by wrongdoing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor exercised due diligence to procure witness attendance under MRE 804(a)(5) | Prosecution: served subpoena at known address three weeks before trial, which was reasonable | Figueroa: subpoena alone was insufficient; prosecution needed more searching efforts | Court: No abuse of discretion; service at known address satisfied due diligence given facts |
| Whether defendant’s conduct procured witness unavailability under MRE 804(b)(6) | Prosecution: recorded jail calls show defendant encouraged nonappearance, causing unavailability | Figueroa: calls preceded preliminary exam and did not explicitly reference trial; he ceased efforts after bindover | Court: No abuse of discretion; calls and nonappearance at both hearings support finding of intent to keep witness away |
| Whether admission of statements violated Sixth Amendment confrontation clause | Prosecution: forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine permits admission when defendant procured unavailability | Figueroa: confrontation right violated by admission of out-of-court statements | Court: Confrontation right forfeited by defendant’s wrongdoing; admission constitutional |
| Whether remand for evidentiary hearing on prosecutorial efforts was required | Prosecution: record shows service and circumstances; no remand needed | Figueroa: sought further inquiry into efforts to secure attendance | Court: Remand unnecessary given adequate record and trial court’s findings |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Jones, 270 Mich. App. 208 (court may admit statements under forfeiture-by-wrongdoing when appropriate)
- People v. Bean, 457 Mich. 677 (due-diligence standard for procuring witnesses requires reasonable, good-faith efforts)
- People v. Dye, 431 Mich. 58 (prosecution must make sufficient efforts to locate critical witnesses)
- People v. Benton, 294 Mich. App. 191 (constitutional questions reviewed de novo)