342723
Mich. Ct. App.Jan 23, 2020Background
- Defendant Ryan Haase was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder and felony-firearm for the 1995 killing of Leon Fisher (multiple .25‑caliber gunshot wounds); court imposed consecutive sentences (25–60 years + 2 years).
- Victim owed defendant about $100 for marijuana; defendant visited the victim’s residence the night of the killing; victim found dead after homeowners returned from a party; no signs of forced entry and the murder weapon was never recovered.
- Six .25‑caliber shell casings were recovered; ballistics showed the casings were fired from the same gun.
- Friend George Barnes initially lied to police about Haase’s whereabouts at Haase’s request, later (2016) told investigators Haase had confessed to shooting the man, gave Barnes several unfired .25 cartridges, and said he threw the gun in a lake.
- Prosecution introduced MRE 404(b) other‑acts evidence that Haase participated in a January 19, 1995 home invasion in which a silver .25 handgun with a pearl handle was taken; defense later obtained discovery showing the stepmother’s only registered .25 was purchased in 1996, after the murder.
- Trial court admitted the home‑invasion evidence and gave limiting instructions; Haase appealed, arguing the evidence was irrelevant/unduly prejudicial and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to renew objections; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior home‑invasion (.25 cal) under MRE 404(b) | 404(b) evidence properly shows access to a weapon like the murder weapon and bears on identity/motive | Registration evidence (stepmother’s .25 bought in 1996) shows that the prior home‑invasion gun could not be the murder weapon, rendering the prior‑act evidence irrelevant and impermissible propensity evidence | Admissible: testimony that a .25 was present and missing before 1/19/95 remained probative; registration timing did not negate the testimony; VanderVliet test satisfied; probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; limiting instruction given |
| Ineffective assistance for not renewing objection to home‑invasion evidence after new discovery | Prosecution: objection would have been futile and admission proper; no prejudice | Counsel should have renewed objection after learning of registration history and was ineffective for failing to do so | No ineffective assistance: renewal would be futile because registration did not refute witnesses; failing to raise a meritless objection is not ineffective; no prejudice shown |
| Admission of character evidence (greed/violence) and counsel’s failure to object | Prosecution used witness testimony to show motive/intent and to rebut defenses; evidence brief and cumulative | Evidence was improper character propensity proof under MRE 404(a); counsel ineffective for not objecting; alternatively plain error | No relief: even assuming deficiency, Haase failed to show prejudice given strong inculpatory evidence (Barnes’ recantation/confession, alibi contradictions, matching cartridges); plain‑error claim not shown or was inadequately preserved |
| Plain‑error / sua sponte duty to exclude evidence | — | Trial judge should have sua sponte intervened to exclude character evidence | Abandoned/insufficient; no authority imposes such sua sponte duty; plain error not established |
Key Cases Cited
- People v VanderVliet, 444 Mich 52 (1993) (four‑part test for admissibility of other‑acts evidence under MRE 404(b))
- People v Mardlin, 487 Mich 609 (2010) (standard for abuse of discretion and MRE 403 balancing on unfair prejudice)
- People v Denson, 500 Mich 385 (2017) (other‑acts evidence admissible only when relevant to a noncharacter purpose)
- People v Hall, 433 Mich 573 (1989) (possession of weapon like that used in the crime is relevant to identity)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 US 668 (1984) (two‑part federal standard for ineffective assistance: performance and prejudice)
- People v Randolph, 502 Mich 1 (2018) (Michigan discussion of ineffective‑assistance standards)
- People v Carines, 460 Mich 750 (1999) (plain‑error standard requiring prejudice to substantial rights)
- People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210 (2008) (deference to trial strategy and standard for abuse of discretion)