People of Michigan v. Rodney Scot Armstrong Jr
332793
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 14, 2017Background
- Late-night June 17–18, 2014 shooting near Buffalo Wild Wings in Grand Rapids; two teens (Forbes and Means) were shot; Forbes severely injured.
- Earlier that evening defendant Armstrong had been beaten outside the restaurant; surveillance/video and cell records showed he was driven home, then later returned downtown.
- Video and eyewitness testimony placed a car associated with Armstrong circling, parking, and a man walking to where the teens stood and firing three shots.
- Defense argued other persons from earlier fights or gang-affiliated actors had motive; challenged eyewitness credibility and emphasized video inconsistencies.
- Jury convicted Armstrong of two counts assault with intent to murder, felony-firearm, and felon-in-possession; Armstrong appealed arguing prosecutorial misconduct, exclusion of hearsay defense evidence, improper use of a compilation video, and cumulative error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Armstrong) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial use of allegedly false testimony / failure to correct it | Prosecutor did not knowingly use perjured testimony; video was played and inconsistencies exposed to jury | Prosecutor elicited and failed to correct false testimony and vouched for witnesses, violating due process | No due-process violation: video was admitted, inconsistencies exposed, prosecutor did not rely on alleged lies and did not impermissibly vouch |
| Prosecutor vouching for eyewitness ID | Prosecutor may argue facts and inferences supporting credibility; relied on contemporaneous ID and circumstantial evidence | Argued prosecutor implied special knowledge and improperly vouched despite witness falsehoods | No improper vouching: prosecutor pointed to facts, independent corroboration, and did not claim special office-based knowledge |
| Exclusion of witness testimony recounting an unidentified man saying "I’m going to shoot you" | Statement was speculative and lacked sufficient nexus to victims; hearsay and properly excluded under MRE 403 | Offered to show alternative motive/identity; exclusion denied presentation of defense | Exclusion was within discretion: statement was hearsay with minimal probative value and risked jury confusion; no violation of right to present a defense |
| Use of compilation video in closing (demonstrative) | Compilation was a demonstrative aid that combined admitted footage and highlighted inferences; closing argument may use demonstratives | Compilation impermissibly created new evidence and misled jury; not admitted into evidence | No plain error: prosecutor used admitted footage as demonstrative aid, did not introduce new evidence, and jury instructions cured any minimal prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Smith, 498 Mich 466 (2015) (prosecutor must correct known false testimony; focus is on effect on trial fairness)
- People v Aceval, 282 Mich App 379 (2009) (conviction from knowing use of perjured testimony must be set aside if any reasonable likelihood it affected jury)
- People v Bahoda, 448 Mich 261 (1994) (limits on prosecutor vouching; prosecutor may argue facts and inferences but not claim special knowledge)
- People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210 (2008) (defendant’s right to present a defense subject to evidentiary rules; exclusion does not violate right if rules properly applied)
- People v Bennett, 290 Mich App 465 (2010) (unpreserved prosecutorial-misconduct claims reviewed for plain error; closing may use demonstrative aids if not introducing new evidence)