People of Michigan v. Marcel Jerome Robinson
330304
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 11, 2017Background
- 18-year-old J met Robinson at his home to ‘chill’; he removed her phone battery and later fought her, restrained her, and forced intercourse.
- J suffered serious injuries; semen matched Robinson’s DNA; CODIS already contained his profile; police delayed investigation for about three years.
- Police later showed J a photo array identifying Robinson; prosecutor played Robinson’s recorded police interview during trial.
- Robinson repeatedly changed his story in the interview; he admitted some conduct but denied rape and punched J earlier.
- Defense sought mistrial due to inadmissible statements in the redacted recording; court gave curative instructions rather than a mistrial.
- Appellate court affirmed convictions and rejected claims about evidentiary errors, improper opinion testimony, and OV scoring.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused discretion by denying mistrial over redacted police interview | Robinson’s prior bad acts and polygraph mention prejudice the jury | Mistrial required due to admitted prior misconduct and polygraph reference | No abuse; curative instructions sufficient |
| Whether admission of prior bad acts required reversal | Redacted interview still disclosed other crimes prejudicially | Any disclosure was prejudicial and cannot be cured by instruction | Curative instruction sufficed; not prejudicial enough for mistrial |
| Whether polygraph reference warranted mistrial | Reference to polygraph test was prejudicial | Brief, inadvertent, isolated reference; curative instruction adequate | No mistrial; instruction cured prejudice |
| Whether officer’s opinion testimony on guilt violated due process | Surface’s opinions about lying and J as ‘rape victim’ aided proof of guilt | Opinions were improper but not outcome-determinative | No reversible error; cumulative error lacking; impact not dispositive |
| Whether OV scoring errors require resentencing | OV 1, OV 4, OV 7 mis-scored | Potential OV 4 error; still within guidelines; ineffective assistance claims fail | OV 1 and OV 7 supported; any OV 4 error harmless; no resentencing necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Schaw, 288 Mich App 231 (2010) (mistrial discretionary for prejudicial error; curative instructions favored)
- People v. Griffin, 235 Mich App 27 (1999) (inadmissible other acts may require mistrial; prejudice inquiry)
- People v. Horn, 279 Mich App 31 (2008) (cautionary instructions cure most errors; mistrial not automatic)
- People v. Hardy, 494 Mich 430 (2013) (OV 7 guidance; conduct beyond minimum required for crime supports higher scoring)
- People v. Graves, 458 Mich 476 (1998) (jurors presumed to follow instructions; limits on prejudice from errors)