People of Michigan v. Roger Dewayne Williams
353197
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 26, 2022Background:
- Early-morning fatal shooting in a liquor-store parking lot; defendant (Williams) retrieved a gun from the trunk of an eyewitness/driver (Grace) and shot the victim, then fired additional shots from Grace’s car as they fled; defendant later jumped out and ran.
- Three eyewitnesses (Grace, William Newell, Keith Jackson) identified Williams at trial; liquor-store surveillance video showing the shooting was admitted.
- A letter allegedly written by Williams was delivered to Grace while Grace was in jail; the prosecution introduced the letter as evidence and argued it was authored by Williams and bore case-specific details.
- Williams was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder, two counts of felony-firearm, carrying a concealed weapon, and being a felon in possession of a firearm; sentenced to lengthy prison terms; he appealed.
- On appeal Williams challenged (1) the admissibility of two in-court identifications as unduly suggestive, (2) trial counsel’s effectiveness for not seeking suppression of those IDs, (3) the authentication/admission of the letter, and (4) the rejection of a manslaughter lesser-included instruction.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of in-court IDs (Newell, Jackson) | IDs admissible; no law-enforcement-facilitated pretrial ID, so no due-process taint; credibility for jury | IDs were impermissibly suggestive and violated due process | Affirmed — no suggestive out-of-court ID by police; in-court IDs for jury to weigh (Posey controls) |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to move to suppress IDs | Failure to move was not deficient because suppression motion would be futile; substantial other evidence existed | Counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress unduly suggestive IDs | Affirmed — counsel not ineffective; objection would be meritless and no prejudice given other strong evidence (Strickland standard) |
| Authentication/admission of the letter delivered to Grace | Letter had distinctive contents and circumstances (nickname, case-specific facts) sufficient under MRE 901 to allow juror to decide weight | Letter not properly authenticated; no proof Williams authored it | Affirmed — trial court permissibly found prima facie authentication under MRE 901(b)(4); jurors decide weight (Berkey/Smith) |
| Request for manslaughter (lesser-included) instruction | N/A (prosecution opposed) | Manslaughter instruction was supported by the evidence | Affirmed — defendant abandoned argument by not supporting it; record lacked evidence of adequate provocation to warrant manslaughter instruction (Gillis/Hess) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Posey, 334 Mich. App. 338 (2020) (no suggestive law-enforcement pretrial identification, in-court ID credibility for jury)
- People v. Kurylczyk, 443 Mich. 289 (1993) (in-court identification may be allowed if independent, untainted basis exists)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (1999) (plain-error standard; prejudice requirement for forfeited issues)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance standard)
- People v. Randolph, 502 Mich. 1 (2018) (applying Strickland in Michigan)
- People v. Berkey, 437 Mich. 40 (1991) (prima facie authentication under MRE 901 suffices to admit evidence)
- People v. Smith, 336 Mich. App. 79 (2021) (trial court decides whether proponent made prima facie authentication showing)
- People v. Gillis, 474 Mich. 105 (2006) (manslaughter is a necessarily included lesser offense of murder; instruction required only if supported by rational view of evidence)