People of Michigan v. Ricardo Cortez Stanford
329388
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 11, 2017Background
- May 13, 2014: Jaguar Stephens was shot twice at a Detroit Dairy Queen; his brother Richard witnessed the shooting and fled. Jaguar did not see the shooter; Richard gave varying descriptions.
- Police initially had only a general description; two days later Detective Loren Lozon received two anonymous Crime Stoppers tips naming Ricardo Cortez Stanford and placed Stanford’s photo in a photographic array; Richard identified Stanford seconds later.
- At trial Stanford denied being at the scene and presented an alibi witness; the jury convicted him of assault with intent to murder and two weapons offenses after a prior mistrial by deadlock.
- Stanford challenged (1) admission of Detective Lozon’s testimony about Crime Stoppers tips (Confrontation Clause/ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object), (2) denial of a mistrial after Lozon made unresponsive remarks (reference to an arrest photo and that “burner phones” are often used in crimes), and (3) calculation of jail credit based on an incorrect arrest date.
- The court rejected Stanford’s confrontation and mistrial claims but agreed the judgment used the wrong arrest date and remanded for ministerial correction of jail credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Stanford) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Crime Stoppers tips | Testimony explained why detectives included Stanford’s photo in the array; not offered for truth | Testimony was testimonial hearsay that violated Confrontation Clause; counsel ineffective for not objecting | Admission proper: tip used to explain police conduct; counsel not ineffective for failing to object |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object to tip testimony | No prejudicial error; evidence admissible so no meritorious objection | Counsel should have preserved Confrontation Clause challenge | No ineffective assistance (failure to object to meritless issue is not ineffective) |
| Mistrial for detective’s unresponsive remarks (arrest photo, burner phones) | Remarks were inadvertent; curative instruction sufficed; prosecutor did not elicit the remark | Remarks were prejudicial, police had been warned, warranted mistrial | Denial of mistrial not an abuse: isolated, prosecutor not responsible, curative instruction adequate, jurors presumed to follow instruction |
| Jail credit/arrest date | Corrects to prosecution’s concession that arrest date was Nov 14, 2014 | Judgment used Nov 16, 2014; Stanford entitled to more credit | Remand for ministerial correction: award 294 days credit |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Chambers, 277 Mich. App. 1 (Mich. Ct. App.) (out-of-court informant statements may be admitted to explain police conduct rather than for truth)
- People v Putnam, 309 Mich. App. 240 (Mich. Ct. App.) (Crime Stoppers tip admissible to explain why officer included defendant’s photo in array)
- People v Page, 41 Mich. App. 99 (Mich. Ct. App.) (police volunteer remarks can be highly prejudicial and sometimes require mistrial)
- People v Jackson, 313 Mich. App. 409 (Mich. Ct. App.) (warnings to witnesses do not eliminate risk when they ignore instructions; context matters for prejudice)