People of Michigan v. Robert Harley Davidson, 332032

In Aug. 2015 defendant moved into Apartment 4 with girlfriend Lalonde; friend Beauchamp and Beauchamp’s girlfriend Sarasin also lived there. Sarasin overheard defendant say his brother James Davidson was coming from Florida to teach him how to cook meth in the apartment.
Davidson arrived; defendant met him at the bus station with a taxi driver who overheard furtive comments by the brothers about "working" public safety.
Sarasin, Lalonde, Beauchamp and a friend Sovey bought pseudoephedrine and other supplies; Davidson used the living room as a one-pot meth lab while defendant observed and assisted in purchases.
Neighbors and police smelled sulfur; officers found lab equipment, a capped needle, evidence of injection, and an active pressurized ‘‘cooking’’ bottle.
Codefendants pleaded guilty or otherwise cooperated and testified against defendant. A jury convicted defendant of operating/maintaining a meth lab and conspiracy to manufacture/deliver meth; defendant appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of taxi conversation (hearsay)	Statement was non-hearsay as a coconspirator statement under MRE 801(d)(2)(E); independent proof of conspiracy existed.	Statement was inadmissible hearsay; foundation for coconspirator exception was inadequate.	Admission proper: independent evidence established a conspiracy, the statement was during and in furtherance of it, so no error.
Sufficiency of evidence re: possession/use of apartment and equipment	Evidence showed defendant used/shared possession of the apartment, helped buy materials, knew Davidson would cook there, and observed learning the process.	Defendant argued he was a short-term resident, lacked control of apartment, and no direct physical evidence tied him to setup.	Evidence sufficient: circumstantial proof supported knowing use/possession; conviction affirmed.
Ineffective assistance of counsel (venue, juror challenges, mistrial)	Counsel’s performance was reasonable; motions (venue, mistrial) would have been futile given voir dire and facts; juror issues were harmless or moot.	Counsel failed to move for change of venue despite local publicity; failed to remove for-cause jurors or seek mistrial when a juror recognized a witness.	No ineffective assistance: voir dire did not show pervasive bias; juror with familiarity became alternate (moot); juror who knew a witness said he could be impartial and testimony was not critical—motions would have been futile.

People v Burns, 494 Mich 104 (court reviews evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and legal questions de novo)
People v Martin, 271 Mich App 280 (definition and requirements for coconspirator statement exception to hearsay)
People v Bushard, 444 Mich 384 (statements providing reassurance can be in furtherance of a conspiracy)
People v Meissner, 294 Mich App 438 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
People v Jendrzejewski, 455 Mich 495 (change-of-venue principles; community prejudice standard)
People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210 (when change of venue appropriate for impartial jury concerns)
People v DeLisle, 202 Mich App 658 (jurors’ promise to set aside preexisting opinions typically defeats venue claim)
People v Waclawski, 286 Mich App 634 (mistrial standard: prejudice that impairs fair trial required)
People v Toma, 462 Mich 281 (ineffective assistance standard; prejudice and performance prongs)
People v Rockey, 237 Mich App 74 (no hindsight reevaluation of counsel strategy)