People of Michigan v. Steven Paul Thompson, 328306

Background

On July 2, 2014 an informant conducted undercover controlled buys at Joseph Bittner’s residence; she returned having purchased hydrocodone and "bath salts," and reported that defendant Steven Thompson offered to sell her two grams of "bath salts" for $200.
Officers surveilled the buys, equipped the informant with a hidden audio recorder, and later identified defendant’s voice on the recording; the informant identified Thompson at trial as the seller.
Thompson was arrested January 8, 2015, interviewed in custody, waived Miranda, and allegedly made statements admitting prior purchase and sale of bath salts and trading sex for drugs; the officers memorialized the interview in a report that the prosecutor only received and produced on the first day of trial.
At trial the prosecution introduced testimony about Thompson’s custodial statements as party admissions (but not the report itself); Thompson denied making the incriminating statements and challenged the report’s accuracy.
Thompson was convicted by a jury of delivery/manufacture of a schedule 1, 2, or 3 controlled substance (except marijuana or cocaine) and sentenced to 2.5–7 years; he appealed raising discovery violation, ineffective assistance (failure to request MCL 763.8(2) recording instruction), prosecutorial misconduct, other-acts evidence, and failure to give the addict-informant instruction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Late disclosure of officers’ report (discovery violation)	Prosecutor produced report as soon as received; statements admissible as party admissions; no bad faith	Late delivery prevented adequate preparation and warranted remedy/exclusion	No abuse of discretion; evidence admissible, no bad faith, defendant didn’t seek continuance, error not outcome-determinative
Failure to request jury instruction under MCL 763.8(2) (failure to record custodial interrogation)	Recording requirement inapplicable because offense not a "major felony"	Counsel ineffective for not requesting the recording-failure instruction	Not ineffective — instruction would be futile because offense (max 7 years) is not a "major felony" under statute
Prosecutorial misconduct (vouching, denigrating defense, improper argument)	Prosecutor’s questions and argument improperly bolstered informant, asked defendant to opine on witnesses, and denigrated defense	Questions and comments were proper rebuttal, inference-drawing, or invited by defendant; curative instruction sufficed	No plain error affecting substantial rights; remarks were permissible or cured by jury instruction
Addict-informant jury instruction refusal	Informant’s history of drug use warranted special-scrutiny instruction	Informant was not shown to be an addict at the time; other evidence tied defendant to the crime	No abuse of discretion; insufficient evidence that informant was an addict at time of buy; instruction not required

Key Cases Cited

People v. Burns, 494 Mich. 104 (Mich. 2013) (trial court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
People v. Elston, 462 Mich. 751 (Mich. 2000) (remedies for discovery violations and continuance considerations)
People v. Taylor, 159 Mich. App. 468 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987) (balancing prejudice and remedies for nondisclosure; exclusion only in egregious cases)
People v. Unger, 278 Mich. App. 210 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (jury determines witness credibility; court will not reweigh evidence)
People v. Lukity, 460 Mich. 484 (Mich. 1999) (harmless-error standard for preserved nonconstitutional errors — outcome-determinative test)
People v. Bahoda, 448 Mich. 261 (Mich. 1995) (prosecutor may not vouch for witness using special knowledge)
People v. Dobek, 274 Mich. App. 58 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007) (prosecutor's role is to seek justice; misconduct tested by effect on trial fairness)
People v. Jackson, 292 Mich. App. 583 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (addict-informant instruction required when informant’s addiction is clearly shown)