People of Michigan v. Robert Scott Knauss, 329200

Background

In a consolidated appeal, Peter Peterson and Robert Knauss were each convicted of first-degree premeditated murder (1995 killing of Vincent Adamczak) and sentenced to life without parole. They were tried together before separate juries.
Witness Rose Skrzycki (Knauss’s then-girlfriend) testified that Peterson shot Adamczak, that Knauss dug a grave, and that both helped dispose of the body; Skrzycki had given multiple, inconsistent prior statements and entered/withdrew immunity and plea agreements.
Knauss made out-of-court statements over the years implicating both himself and Peterson in the killing; Knauss did not testify at trial and was unavailable.
Peterson challenges (1) testimony by Skrzycki’s attorney about prior consistent statements and credibility, (2) failure to give accomplice instructions, (3) admission/implication of Knauss’s police statements raising Confrontation Clause concerns, and (4) admissibility of Knauss’s nontestimonial statements under MRE 804(b)(3).
Knauss raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, multiple instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct (including eliciting prior bad acts and improper arguments), and erroneous admission of prior-bad-act/hearsay evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Testimony of Skrzycki’s attorney (improper bolstering/hearsay)	Prosecution: even if error occurred, it was not prejudicial; substantial other evidence of Skrzycki’s inconsistent statements and admissions existed.	Peterson: attorney vouched for Skrzycki, introduced prior consistent statements/hearsay; trial counsel ineffective for not objecting.	Court assumed error and deficient counsel but found no prejudice under Carines/Carbin; conviction stands.
2) Accomplice instruction (M Crim JI 5.4/5.5/5.6)	Peterson: jury should have received disputed-accomplice instruction (M Crim JI 5.5) given evidence of Skrzycki’s participation.	Prosecution: defendant waived instruction by requesting 5.4 and affirmatively stating 5.5 inapplicable.	Court: issue waived; no relief.
3) Confrontation Clause — references to Knauss’s police interviews	Prosecution: no testimonial statements linking Peterson were admitted to Peterson’s jury; any implicit references were harmless.	Peterson: Knauss’s statements to police that implicated Peterson violated his confrontation rights.	Court found no Confrontation Clause violation as presented to Peterson’s jury and any error was not prejudicial.
4) Admissibility of Knauss’s nontestimonial statements (MRE 804(b)(3))	Prosecution: statements were against Knauss’s penal interest, formed a single narrative that inculpated both Knauss and Peterson and thus admissible.	Peterson: challenged reliability/indicia of trustworthiness (relied on Poole factors).	Court applied Taylor (post-Crawford) reasoning: Poole’s indicia test not required; statements were part of a single narrative against Knauss and admissible under MRE 804(b)(3).
5) Knauss — ineffective assistance of counsel	Prosecution: trial court’s Ginther hearing found no prejudice; counsel’s tactics reasonable or nonprejudicial.	Knauss: counsel failed to present rational defense, object, cross-examine, and made improper remarks.	Trial court’s detailed Ginther ruling adopted; appellate court agreed Knauss failed to show prejudice under Carbin; claim denied.
6) Knauss — prosecutorial misconduct & prior-bad-acts evidence	Prosecution: elicited evidence argued to be admissible or used in good faith; some evidence used by defense as well.	Knauss: prosecutor elicited inadmissible prior-bad-acts, false testimony, improper voir dire/argument, sympathy appeals.	Court found no prosecutorial misconduct that affected substantial rights; many issues waived or lacked prejudice; conviction affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

People v Carines, 460 Mich 750 (1999) (plain-error standard for unpreserved errors)
People v Carbin, 463 Mich 590 (2001) (ineffective-assistance prejudice standard)
Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (testimonial statements and Confrontation Clause)
People v Taylor, 482 Mich 368 (2008) (scope of MRE 804(b)(3) after Crawford; narrative against interest admissibility)
People v Nunley, 491 Mich 686 (2012) (Confrontation Clause discussion re: testimonial police statements)
Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (limitations on admission of co-defendant statements in joint trials)
Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (limiting instructions and co-defendant statements)
People v Poole, 444 Mich 151 (1993) (prior indicia-of-reliability analysis for statements against interest — discussed/limited by Taylor)
People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484 (1999) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436 (1973) (framework for ineffective assistance evidentiary hearing)