People of Michigan v. Samuel Dreall Caston, 327623

Background

Defendant Samuel Caston was convicted after a bench trial of felonious assault, domestic violence, and second-offense possession of marijuana; sentenced as a fourth habitual offender.
Incident: after an argument with his then-girlfriend LaShawna Hubbard, police arrived; Hubbard reported being struck (including twice with a baseball bat) and taken from whom she did not want to be with; officers recovered Hubbard’s phone and a baseball bat; photographs showed bruising to her knee.
Hubbard did not appear at trial; the prosecutor sought to admit her preliminary-examination testimony under MRE 804(b)(1) (former testimony) and MRE 804(b)(6) (forfeiture-by-wrongdoing); the trial court admitted the transcript after finding Hubbard unavailable and admitting evidence of due diligence.
The prosecution and police had previously subpoenaed Hubbard, met with her, attempted multiple phone contacts (voicemail full), canvassed her residence and workplace, and were prepared to seek a material-witness warrant; the court found these efforts constituted due diligence under MRE 804(a)(5).
The court also admitted recorded jail calls in which defendant threatened Hubbard, told her not to show up for trial, and urged her to stay away; the trial court found by a preponderance that Caston’s calls were intended to, and did, procure her unavailability under MRE 804(b)(6).
On appeal Caston argued (1) the prosecution failed to show due diligence to render Hubbard unavailable and (2) admission of her prior testimony violated his Sixth Amendment confrontation right; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the prosecution exercised due diligence under MRE 804(a)(5) to procure Hubbard’s attendance	Prosecution: timely, good-faith efforts (subpoena, in-person service, multiple contacts, canvass of residence/work, court-authorized warrant steps) satisfied due diligence	Caston: prosecution failed to take adequate steps (relies on Dye and Bean where efforts were found deficient)	Court: due diligence shown; no abuse of discretion in admitting preliminary-exam testimony
Whether MRE 804(b)(6) forfeiture-by-wrongdoing applies	Prosecution: recorded jail calls show Caston threatened and instructed Hubbard not to appear; he intended to procure her unavailability	Caston: challenged application of forfeiture rule / sufficiency of evidence of specific intent	Court: preponderance of evidence proved Caston engaged in wrongdoing with specific intent to procure unavailability; MRE 804(b)(6) applies
Whether admission of Hubbard’s former testimony violated the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause	Prosecution: forfeiture-by-wrongdoing is a recognized exception to confrontation rights when defendant procured witness’s absence	Caston: admission denied his right to confront the witness at trial	Court: Burns/Giles permit forfeiture exception; defendant forfeited confrontation right by his misconduct; no violation
Preservation and standard of review for challenges to admissibility/unavailability	Prosecution: Appellant did not preserve due-diligence or confrontation claims; review is for plain error only	Caston: raised sufficiency of efforts and constitutional error on appeal despite no contemporaneous objection on those grounds	Court: issues unpreserved; reviewed for plain error and found no error affecting substantial rights

Key Cases Cited

People v Dye, 431 Mich 58 (distinguishes where police efforts were belated and deficient)
People v Bean, 457 Mich 677 (addresses insufficiency of police location efforts for unavailable witness)
People v Burns, 494 Mich 104 (forfeiture-by-wrongdoing rule requires specific intent to procure witness’s unavailability)
Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (forfeiture doctrine and requirement of intent for Confrontation Clause exception)
Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 (reasonableness/due diligence standard for producing missing witnesses)