People of Michigan v. Ontario McDowell
329818
| Mich. Ct. App. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- May 7, 2015: police arrested Ontario McDowell on a public street and found three cell phones, $10.25, a glass pipe, a corked vial with crystalline substance, and a black velvet bag containing nine small paper "bindles." Lab testing showed the crystals were methamphetamine; each bindle ~0.08 g.
- Officer Ryan Mynsberge (narcotics expert) described meth production, common packaging/pricing, and testified that the vial looked like personal use while the nine individually packaged bindles were consistent with distribution.
- Detective Brian Kerrigan forensically examined an operational phone listing McDowell as "me," found selfies and texts referencing meth sales, prices (e.g., "three for 50," "8 ball for 225"), and requests for "boxes" (pseudoephedrine); he opined the messages and quantities supported intent to sell.
- Lieutenant Platzer testified the nine bindles "appear[ed] to be a dealer’s quantity." No limiting instruction on drug-profile evidence was given at trial.
- McDowell was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine; he appealed, arguing improper admission of drug-seller profile evidence and ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object/request a limiting instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of drug‑profile testimony | Prosecutor: officer testimony was proper background/modus operandi to explain packaging, manufacture, and texts | McDowell: officers went beyond background and expressly opined he was a dealer; that constituted improper use of profile evidence | Court: Officers crossed the line by opining McDowell was a dealer and court erred in admitting those specific opinions and not giving a limiting instruction, but error was harmless given other strong evidence |
| Failure to give limiting instruction on drug‑profile evidence | N/A | McDowell: counsel should have requested M Crim JI 4.17 limiting instruction before deliberations | Court: counsel erred in failing to request the instruction but omission likely not outcome‑determinative; no relief warranted |
| Ineffective assistance for not objecting to profile testimony | N/A | McDowell: counsel was ineffective for not objecting to improper testimony | Court: strategic reasons can justify silence; failure to object was not necessarily ineffective and prejudice not shown |
| Harmless error analysis | Prosecutor: even if some testimony improper, properly admitted evidence supported verdict | McDowell: improper opinions likely affected jury and conviction | Court: improperly admitted opinions did not affect substantial rights given strong physical evidence and incriminating texts; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Murray, 234 Mich. App. 46 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999) (framework and limits for admitting drug‑profile evidence)
- People v. Ray, 191 Mich. App. 706 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991) (police expert testimony may aid jury in controlled substance cases)
- People v. Aldrich, 246 Mich. App. 101 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (preservation rule for evidentiary objections)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (Mich. 1999) (plain‑error standard for unpreserved claims)
- People v. Matuszak, 263 Mich. App. 42 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004) (requirements for preserving ineffective‑assistance claims)
- People v. Pickens, 446 Mich. 298 (Mich. 1994) (Strickland‑type standard for ineffective assistance in Michigan)
- People v. Tommolino, 187 Mich. App. 14 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991) (deference to trial counsel's strategic choices)
- People v. Unger, 278 Mich. App. 210 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (wide latitude for counsel's trial strategy)
- People v. Johnson, 451 Mich. 115 (Mich. 1996) (prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)
- People v. Bahoda, 448 Mich. 261 (Mich. 1995) (strategic reasons may justify not objecting; cautions on drawing attention to damaging testimony)