People of Michigan v. Ralph Rosas
330296
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 13, 2017Background
- At a roller-skating rink party, security guard Christopher Johnson attempted to remove one of Rosas’s friends; Rosas and an assailant chased Johnson through the parking lot. The assailant had a knife and stabbed Johnson in the abdomen.
- After the stabbing, the pair chased Johnson to a gas station; Rosas pulled a gun on security guard Daniel Gilliam and demanded money while the assailant held a knife to Gilliam’s face. Surveillance video recorded the chase and robbery.
- Police later apprehended Rosas and the assailant; the assailant’s DNA was linked to the knife found near Rosas at arrest. A large sum of money was recovered at the scene.
- Rosas was tried by jury and convicted of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder (AWIGBH) and armed robbery; the trial court sentenced him as a fourth habitual offender to concurrent/aggregate lengthy terms (80–120 months for AWIGBH; 225–600 months for armed robbery).
- On appeal Rosas challenged (1) the denial of his motion for directed verdict (insufficient evidence under an aiding-and-abetting theory for AWIM/AWIGBH), and (2) admission of Detective Toth’s recounting of out-of-court statements by Gilliam as hearsay (excited utterance exception).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence on aiding and abetting AWIM/AWIGBH | Prosecution: evidence (chase, video, knife near Rosas, identifications, assailant’s threats) shows Rosas aided and knew of assailant’s intent | Rosas: at most mere presence; no proof he assisted or knew assailant intended to stab/kill | Affirmed — viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, sufficient to submit aiding-and-abetting charges to jury |
| Whether Rosas was associated with the stabber | Prosecution: eyewitness IDs, video, DNA on knife found near Rosas connect assailant to Rosas | Rosas: stabbing could have been by an unrelated person | Rejected — IDs, video, knife proximity and DNA tied assailant to Rosas |
| Admission of Detective Toth’s testimony recounting Gilliam’s statements | Prosecution: testimony admissible as excited utterance or, if erroneous, cumulative and harmless | Rosas: Toth’s recounting was inadmissible hearsay not covered by exception | Harmless error (if any) — Gilliam had testified at trial; other witnesses corroborated; surveillance and money recovery also supported the facts |
| Whether excited-utterance rule applied to Toth’s testimony | Prosecution: statements made at scene while declarant was excited/fearful after a startling event | Rosas: statements were not within exception | Court did not decide abuse of discretion on exception; held any error harmless given corroboration |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Schrauben, 314 Mich. App. 181 (prosecution-evidence standard for directed verdict review)
- People v Robinson, 475 Mich. 1 (elements for aiding and abetting conviction)
- People v Norris, 236 Mich. App. 411 (mere presence insufficient for aiding and abetting)
- People v Smith, 456 Mich. 543 (excited-utterance focus on lack of capacity to fabricate)
- People v Layher, 238 Mich. App. 573 (elements of excited-utterance exception)
- People v Gursky, 486 Mich. 596 (harmless-error analysis for cumulative hearsay)
- People v Henderson, 306 Mich. App. 1 (definition/elements of AWIM)
- People v Stevens, 306 Mich. App. 620 (definition/elements of AWIGBH)