People of Michigan v. Mark Darnell Booker, 326570

Background

Police SOS narcotics surveillance observed vehicle-to-vehicle handoff behavior in a high-crime Lansing area; marked LPD units (Officers Smith and Hough) stopped Booker’s SUV.
During the stop officers saw Booker make furtive movements inside the car; he refused lawful orders to exit, then resisted arrest, reached into his waistband and backseat, and struggled physically with officers.
During the struggle officers smelled and observed white powder; powder was later found throughout the vehicle; officers recovered ammunition and large amounts of cash; a warranted search of Booker’s residence yielded ~400 grams of cocaine and drug-distribution indicia.
Prosecution admitted exhibit 78 (an envelope and two‑page letter from a prisoner referencing drugs) at trial; defense did not object and had previously agreed the court could send admitted exhibits to the jury during deliberations. The jury was later given exhibit 78 during deliberations and convicted Booker.
After conviction Booker sought a new trial; the trial court granted it based on plain‑error analysis concerning exhibit 78. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and reversed the trial court’s new‑trial order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility / jury review of exhibit 78 (letter)	Admission was permissible; any argument that letter was "extrinsic" is wrong because exhibit was admitted; jurors were appropriately instructed.	Letter was prejudicial hearsay/extrinsic evidence and prosecutorial misconduct; giving it to jury required reversal/new trial.	Exhibit 78 was admitted; defense waived objection and counsel consented to sending exhibits; any error was not outcome‑determinative given overwhelming evidence.
Trial court’s grant of new trial	N/A (prosecution appealed)	Trial court correctly found plain error and granted new trial due to prejudicial effect of letter.	Trial court erred: it relied on plain‑error reasoning for a motion under MCR 6.431; appellate plain‑error review requires showing outcome‑determinative prejudice, which Booker failed to show. Reversed.
Fourth Amendment search/seizure (stop, arrest, searches)	Stop and subsequent searches were supported by reasonable suspicion and probable cause given surveillance pattern, furtive movement, resistance, visible powder and odor; searches lawful (stop, ordering out, arrest, search incident to arrest, automobile exception).	Stop lacked reasonable suspicion (no traffic violation); searches unlawful, so suppression required.	Stop was justified by reasonable suspicion of drug activity; ordering exit, arrest, search incident to arrest, and automobile‑exception search were lawful. Motion to suppress properly denied.
Ineffective assistance of counsel	N/A (prosecution)	Counsel erred by failing to perfect interlocutory appeal, not objecting to exhibit 78, and not moving for mistrial; these failures prejudiced Booker.	Counsel’s choices were reasonable trial strategy under the circumstances; failure to perfect interlocutory appeal had no practical effect; Booker failed to show prejudice under Strickland.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Rao, 491 Mich 271 (2012) (standard of review for trial court’s grant/denial of new trial)
Carines v. People, 460 Mich 750 (1999) (plain‑error test for unpreserved claims)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 US 332 (2009) (search incident to arrest limits)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668 (1984) (two‑prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
People v. Chapo, 283 Mich App 360 (2009) (officer may order occupants out of vehicle; refusal can provide probable cause to arrest)
People v. Dillon, 296 Mich App 506 (2012) (reasonable‑suspicion/stop analysis under totality of circumstances)
People v. Clark, 220 Mich App 240 (1996) (automobile exception: probable cause justifies warrantless vehicle search)
People v. Lockett, 295 Mich App 165 (2012) (standards for ineffective‑assistance claims)