People of Michigan v. Shawnn Tekalu Mayberry
331178
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 18, 2017Background
- Early-morning July 8, 2014: an armed robber in dark clothing, a black hoodie, nylon mask, and light gloves robbed a Shell station on East Beltline; clerk emptied register into a bag and robber fled. ALPR placed a vehicle with plate 459KXE within one mile minutes after the robbery. Defendant rented a 2013 Hyundai Sonata with plate 459KXE for July 5–14, 2014.
- July 14, 2014: a similar armed robbery at a Norton Shores Shell station; robber wore similar dark clothing, fled in a 2010–2014 Hyundai Sonata and lost a shoe. Co-defendant Muhammad later linked to that scene by DNA on the shoe.
- Police searched defendant’s rental and recovered a black hoodie, light gloves, and a black nylon do-rag. Texts between defendant and Muhammad discussed planning something involving a gun.
- Defendant testified an alibi that he was at work and closely supervised such that he could not have left to commit the robbery; prosecution introduced testimony that defendant slept on the job to rebut tight supervision.
- At trial defendant was convicted of armed robbery (the court treated identity as proven at least by aiding-and-abetting). Defendant appealed raising evidentiary (MRE 404(b), MRE 403), Confrontation Clause, sufficiency, and ineffective assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of 2005 other-acts evidence under MRE 404(b) | 2005 acts show common scheme: rental car, mask, dark clothing — admissible for plan/identity | Admission was prejudicial and improper propensity evidence | Admissible: sufficiently similar to show common plan; probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; limiting instruction given |
| Admission of evidence that defendant slept at work | Used to rebut defendant’s alibi that he was closely supervised and could not leave unnoticed | Irrelevant and impermissible other-acts/character evidence | Admissible: material and probative to show defendant could leave work unnoticed; not unfairly prejudicial; plain-error review fails |
| Admission of Norton Shores (July 14) robbery evidence under MRE 404(b) | Admissible to show common plan (target Shell stations, dark clothing, Hyundai flight) | No connection tying defendant to that robbery; unfairly prejudicial | Admissible: similarities support common plan; circumstantial links (texts, vehicle type, co-defendant) make it probative; jury instructed limiting use |
| Confrontation Clause challenge to detective’s testimony about deputy’s traffic-stop info | Testimony was non-hearsay background explaining investigation; not offered for its truth | Violated right to confront declarant about the traffic-stop details | No violation: testimony showed why detectives proceeded; not used substantively to prove elements; any objection would have been futile |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Aldrich, 246 Mich. App. 101 (preservation requirement for evidentiary objections)
- People v. Knox, 469 Mich. 502 (MRE 404(b) multifactor framework)
- People v. VanderVliet, 444 Mich. 52 (other-acts admissibility principles)
- People v. Crawford, 458 Mich. 376 (relevance and MRE 403 balancing)
- People v. Sabin (After Remand), 463 Mich. 43 (similar misconduct probative for common plan)
- People v. Steele, 283 Mich. App. 472 (degree of similarity not required to be high for 404(b) plan proof)
- People v. Unger, 278 Mich. App. 210 (presumption that jurors follow limiting instructions)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain error standard for unpreserved claims)
- People v. Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich. 38 (Strickland test for ineffective assistance)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (effective-assistance standard)