People of Michigan v. Terrell Keith Smith
333316
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- On Oct. 18, 2015, Latoya Britton was abducted by Terrell Keith Smith and Patricia Jernigan; Latoya was forced into a car trunk at gunpoint, escaped onto I-94, and later identified injuries consistent with having been in the trunk.
- Jernigan pleaded guilty to armed robbery and unlawful imprisonment and testified that she and Smith planned to kidnap and film Smith raping Latoya.
- Smith was tried by jury and convicted of torture, kidnapping, second-degree criminal sexual conduct, armed robbery, and unlawful imprisonment; he was sentenced as a fourth habitual offender to lengthy prison terms.
- On appeal Smith argued the trial judge was biased (based on pretrial comments, denial of a competency hearing, and in-trial questioning), and that judicial conduct deprived him of a fair trial.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed judicial-bias claims de novo and analyzed whether the judge’s conduct pierced the veil of impartiality under People v. Stevens.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Smith’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether pretrial and sentencing comments by the judge denied a fair trial | Comments were not before the jury and thus did not influence verdict | Judge’s pretrial and sentencing remarks show continuing bias and prejudgment of guilt | Rejected — remarks outside jury presence cannot have improperly influenced jury |
| Whether denial of competency evaluation reflected judicial bias and deprived Smith of treatment/assistance | Court properly exercised discretion; no factual predicate shown for competency hearing | Denial was biased, caused lack of treatment, which led to Smith’s partial self‑representation and ineffective help | Rejected — Smith failed to show necessity for competency hearing or deep‑seated bias in denial |
| Whether the judge’s in‑trial questioning of witnesses showed partiality | Judge’s questioning was to clarify testimony and elicit relevant facts; provided curative instructions | Judicial questioning exhibited disbelief, advocacy, and elicited sympathy for victim | Rejected — questions were permissible clarifying inquiries and did not reveal bias; jury instructed not to treat questions as evidence |
| Whether the judge’s request that victim show scars to jury usurped prosecutor role and highlighted injuries to Smith’s prejudice | Request helped jurors evaluate disputed extent/nature of injuries and clarified testimony | Asking victim to show scars was advocacy and improper emphasis by judge | Rejected — showing scars was relevant, clarifying, and within judge’s duty to ensure full record |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Biddles, 316 Mich. App. 148 (app. 2016) (standard for reviewing judicial‑conduct claims)
- People v. Stevens, 498 Mich. 162 (Mich. 2015) (test for when judicial conduct pierces veil of impartiality)
- People v. Johnson, 315 Mich. App. 163 (app. 2016) (strong presumption of judicial impartiality)
- People v. Jackson, 292 Mich. App. 583 (app. 2011) (judicial rulings not alone evidence of bias)
- People v. McIntire, 232 Mich. App. 71 (app. 1998) (expressions of impatience/annoyance not necessarily partiality)
- People v. Bosca, 310 Mich. App. 1 (app. 2015) (failure to develop factual predicate can abandon claim)
- People v. Pointer, 133 Mich. App. 313 (app. 1984) (pretrial remarks not in jury’s presence generally do not deprive defendant of fair trial)
- People v. Wells, 238 Mich. App. 383 (app. 1999) (rulings alone insufficient to prove deep‑seated favoritism)