People of Michigan v. Ronald Jeffery Bedford
332254
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jan 4, 2018Background
- Defendant (26) was tried for two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct involving a 15‑year‑old; convicted on one count and acquitted on the other.
- The jury viewed ~20 minutes of a recorded police interview in which defendant repeatedly denied wrongdoing; the prosecutor did not play the entire interview.
- After the recording, the prosecutor asked Detective Kevin Knoblock what happened next; Knoblock volunteered that defendant "opted to get a lawyer" and questioning stopped.
- Defense counsel did not object at trial; defendant later moved for a new trial alleging prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object or seek a curative instruction or mistrial.
- A Ginther evidentiary hearing was held; trial court found counsel’s trial‑strategy choices reasonable and that Knoblock’s brief comment was harmless.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the detective’s volunteered remark was not elicited by prosecutorial misconduct, was harmless, and counsel’s decisions were sound trial strategy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor committed misconduct by eliciting testimony about invocation of counsel | Prosecutor asked what occurred after the recorded portion and did not elicit the invocation | The question was designed to elicit and highlight defendant’s invocation of rights, violating Knapp | No misconduct: prosecutor’s question was general; detective volunteered the invocation without prompting |
| Whether the volunteered invocation required reversal | The comment improperly informed jurors of invocation and prejudiced them | The brief, single comment was prejudicial and warranted a new trial | Harmless error: brief remark after lengthy denials on video did not likely affect verdict (Shafier/Knapp standard applies) |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting or requesting curative instruction | Counsel’s failure to object, seek mistrial, or request instruction prejudiced the defense | Counsel made a strategic choice to avoid drawing attention to the invocation; a curative instruction or mistrial would have spotlighted it | No ineffective assistance: counsel’s strategy was reasonable; no reasonable probability of different outcome (Strickland) |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not moving for a mistrial | Same as above; a mistrial was warranted | A mistrial would have been meritless because the response was volunteered and not prejudicial | No ineffective assistance: mistrial motion would likely fail; counsel not ineffective for failing to make meritless motion |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bennett, 290 Mich. App. 465 (preservation and plain‑error review)
- People v. Dobek, 274 Mich. App. 58 (review of prosecutorial misconduct in context)
- People v. Knapp, 244 Mich. App. 361 (police testimony about invocation of rights is impermissible)
- People v. Shafier, 483 Mich. 205 (single brief reference to invocation may be harmless)
- Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756 (harmless‑error principles for prosecutorial remarks)
- People v. Rodriguez, 251 Mich. App. 10 (Ginther hearing preserves ineffective‑assistance claims)
- People v. LeBlanc, 465 Mich. 575 (standard of review for ineffective‑assistance claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑part test for ineffective assistance)
- People v. Barker, 161 Mich. App. 296 (strategic reasons to avoid objecting to improper testimony)
- People v. Riley, 468 Mich. 135 (counsel not ineffective for failing to make frivolous motions)
- People v. Waclawski, 286 Mich. App. 634 (unresponsive volunteered answers are not automatic grounds for mistrial)