People of Michigan v. Mario Shantez Goss, 330236

Defendant Mario Goss was convicted by a jury of first-degree felony murder, felon-in-possession, and felony-firearm; sentenced as a fourth habitual offender to life without parole plus additional prison terms.
A taped jailhouse phone call between codefendants (Kharvell Lewis and Leontae Davenport) was initially excluded by the trial court as a Confrontation Clause violation but this court previously reversed that ruling on interlocutory appeal, finding the statements non‑testimonial.
The recorded conversation was admitted at trial following the interlocutory reversal and was used against defendant.
Codefendant Davenport testified that Goss participated in a home intrusion at Shaw’s residence, beat Shaw with an improvised weapon, took money and marijuana, possessed a .32 caliber handgun, and exited the home carrying two guns after gunshots were heard.
The prosecutor moved to vacate a separate second‑degree murder conviction at sentencing, and the trial court granted the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of recorded jail call	The recording was admissible because statements were not testimonial and thus did not implicate the Confrontation Clause	The recording violated Goss’s Confrontation Clause rights and should be excluded	Court bound by prior interlocutory decision: recording was non‑testimonial and admissible (law‑of‑the‑case precludes reconsideration)
Sufficiency of the evidence to support convictions	Evidence, including Davenport’s testimony and other facts, was sufficient for a rational jury to find elements proved beyond a reasonable doubt	Davenport’s testimony was incredible, false, and self‑serving; therefore evidence was insufficient	Reviewing in the light most favorable to the prosecution, Davenport’s believed testimony provided sufficient evidence; credibility is for the jury

People v. Bennett, 290 Mich. App. 465 (2009) (statements are non‑testimonial for Confrontation Clause analysis)
Grievance Adm’r v. Lopatin, 462 Mich. 235 (2000) (law‑of‑the‑case doctrine explained)
Schumacher v. Dep’t of Natural Resources, 275 Mich. App. 121 (2007) (appellate rulings bind trial courts on remand and subsequent appeals)
People v. Meissner, 294 Mich. App. 438 (2011) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence is de novo)
People v. Gaines, 306 Mich. App. 289 (2014) (evaluate sufficiency by viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution)
People v. Brantley, 296 Mich. App. 546 (2012) (circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences may establish crime elements)
People v. Kanaan, 278 Mich. App. 594 (2008) (conflicts in evidence resolved in favor of prosecution on sufficiency review)
People v. Dunigan, 299 Mich. App. 579 (2013) (credibility determinations are for the jury)