People of Michigan v. Shannen Raymon-Riccel Roberson
333786
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- Defendant was convicted by a jury of four counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, kidnapping, and armed robbery for restraining, repeatedly sexually assaulting, and robbing a victim in a motel room on December 27, 2015.
- After a polygraph exam, defendant gave statements in a post-polygraph interview; those statements were admitted at trial (polygraph and results themselves were not disclosed to the jury).
- Defendant moved to suppress the post-polygraph statements on voluntariness grounds (including effects of seizure medications); the trial court held a Walker hearing and denied suppression.
- Defendant raised multiple ineffective-assistance claims (failure to make a fuller record at the Walker hearing; failure to investigate witnesses/texts/video; advising about testifying/plea), and challenged jury instructions and a midtrial amendment to add an armed-robbery count.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed preserved and unpreserved claims (plain-error standard for unpreserved issues) and affirmed the convictions and denial of relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Roberson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of post-polygraph statements (suppression) | Waiver was knowing and voluntary; polygraph waiver covered post-interview; statements admissible | Statements involuntary: not rewarned of Miranda after polygraph and impaired by seizure medications | Denial of suppression affirmed: totality of circumstances showed voluntary waiver; no plain error on rewarning; no clear error re: medication effects |
| Ineffective assistance for Walker hearing record | Counsel’s handling adequate; no prejudice from not preserving additional arguments | Counsel failed to create foundation (e.g., rewarning, medication side effects, admit drug side‑effects doc) | No relief: claimed additional arguments lacked merit; counsel not ineffective for failing to raise futile or meritless claims |
| Jury instructions for four CSC counts (combined instruction) | Instructions included all elements and directed jury to consider each count separately | Combining counts misled jurors into conflating elements across counts | No plain error: instructions fairly presented issues, contained required elements, jurors presumed to follow instructions |
| Amendment of information to add armed robbery during trial | Amendment permissible; defendant not unfairly surprised or prejudiced | Amendment was prejudicial and an abuse of discretion | No abuse of discretion: defendant failed to articulate prejudice; amendment based on defendant’s own statements so no unfair surprise |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Ray, 431 Mich 260 (post-polygraph waiver evaluated by totality of circumstances)
- People v Mahdi, 317 Mich App 446 (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- People v Heft, 299 Mich App 69 (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standards)
- People v Chapo, 283 Mich App 360 (jury instructions must fairly present issues; reversal not required for imperfect instructions)
- People v Goecke, 457 Mich 442 (in personam jurisdiction vests upon filing return after preliminary exam waiver)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (requirement to advise suspects of constitutional rights)