People of Michigan v. Roger Groce, 331243

Background

On August 27, 2015, Roger Groce took about $1,200 from a BP gas station register in Westland and shot the attendant, Mohamed Saad; Groce admitted the taking and the shooting but claimed he was owed the money and feared Saad would retrieve a hidden gun.
Groce was tried by jury and convicted of armed robbery, assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder (AWIGBH), felon in possession of a firearm, felon in possession of ammunition, felonious assault, and felony‑firearm.
Sentences (as a fourth habitual offender) included 30–50 years for armed robbery, consecutive and concurrent terms for the other felonies, and 2 years for felony‑firearm.
Groce sought a Model Criminal Jury Instruction (M Crim JI 7.5) on “claim of right” (good‑faith belief property was his) to negate larceny intent; the trial court refused.
Groce raised additional claims on appeal: ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate, prosecutorial misconduct for eliciting prior‑record evidence, curable trial errors, cumulative error, and double jeopardy (felonious assault and AWIGBH).
The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting the claim‑of‑right instruction, finding no preserved or demonstrable ineffective assistance or prosecutorial misconduct that affected substantial rights, and holding no double jeopardy violation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by refusing claim‑of‑right jury instruction	Prosecution: instruction inapplicable because register money did not belong to Saad and defendant lacked good‑faith legal claim	Groce: he honestly believed the money was owed to him so no larceny intent	Denied — instruction inapplicable because money was not Saad's and claim required a good‑faith legal entitlement (illegal‑transaction implication undermined good faith)
Ineffective assistance of counsel for insufficient investigation	Prosecution: issue unpreserved; record shows no obvious deficient strategy or prejudice	Groce: counsel failed to obtain surveillance, records, and witnesses that would support his defenses	Denied — claim unpreserved and record shows no clear error or prejudice given Groce’s admissions and lack of factual predicate for missing evidence
Prosecutorial misconduct / improper introduction of prior bad acts	Prosecution: prior‑conviction stipulation and spontaneous/unresponsive testimony were either waived, struck, or harmless; no 404(b) misuse	Groce: prosecutor introduced prior convictions and narcotics‑related evidence to show bad character and propensity	Denied — most references were stipulated or volunteered by Groce, objectionable remark was struck and cured, and any unpreserved error was not plain or outcome‑determinative
Double jeopardy: concurrent convictions for felonious assault and AWIGBH	Prosecution: offenses have different elements (weapon required for felonious assault; AWIGBH requires intent to do great bodily harm)	Groce: convictions punish the same crime/victim and thus violate multiple punishments prohibition	Denied — same‑elements test and Supreme Court precedent allow cumulative punishment because the crimes require proving different elements; separate acts (warning shot then purposeful shot) support distinct convictions

Key Cases Cited

People v. Ackley, 497 Mich 381 (standard for ineffective assistance; performance and prejudice analysis)
People v. Henderson, 306 Mich App 1 (instructional error and when instructions must include defenses supported by evidence)
People v. Cain, 238 Mich App 95 (claim‑of‑right defense requires good‑faith legal belief in entitlement)
People v. Karasek, 63 Mich App 706 (knowledge that debt arose from illegal activity negates claim‑of‑right good faith)
People v. Strawther, 480 Mich 900 (Supreme Court precedent permitting concurrent convictions for AWIGBH and felonious assault because elements differ)
People v. Miller, 498 Mich 13 (multiple punishments analysis focuses on legislative intent and same‑elements test)