People of Michigan v. Terrill Lavon Curtis
330139
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 13, 2017Background
- On June 11, 2014, Dajuan Allen was shot in Detroit; he later identified Terrill "Ray Ray" Curtis as the shooter at trial.
- Police testified Allen told officers at the store the shooter was "Ray Ray" and later viewed a photograph and identified Curtis; Curtis has a "Ray Ray" tattoo.
- A jury convicted Curtis of assault with intent to commit murder, carrying a dangerous weapon with unlawful intent, and felony-firearm; sentence: concurrent prison terms (17–35 yrs and 1–5 yrs) plus consecutive 2-year felony-firearm term.
- Curtis challenged several evidentiary rulings: exclusion of a marked aerial map, exclusion of defense crime-scene photographs, and exclusion of social-media materials for impeachment (sanction for discovery violation).
- He also raised claims of prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument and a due-process challenge to a single-photograph identification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authentication of aerial map | Map offered at preliminary exam was same and admissible | Map at trial lacked reliable identification by Allen; he could not confirm markings | Trial did not abuse discretion excluding map for lack of authentication |
| Authentication of crime-scene photographs | Photographs not properly authenticated; prosecutor objected | Photos depicted Beaconsfield scene and were admissible to show location discrepancies | Even if exclusion was error, defendant failed to show any effect on outcome; no reversible error |
| Discovery sanction: social-media evidence | Curtis violated reciprocal discovery order; court sanctioned by exclusion | Exclusion was excessive; evidence would impeach Allen and affect ID/perception | Sanction upheld: trial court record lacked balancing but defendant waived admission and failed to show prejudice; no reversal |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in rebuttal | Prosecutor improperly denigrated defense counsel | Comments responded to defense closing that attacked witness consistency | No plain error: remarks were direct response to defense and tied to trial evidence |
| Single-photograph identification due process | Single-photo lineup was unduly suggestive and tainted ID | Allen had already identified "Ray Ray" in-store before photo; photo only confirmed ID | No plain error: prior in-store ID and prior relationship provided independent basis for later photographic/trial ID |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lane, 308 Mich. App. 38 (discussing standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- People v. Waclawski, 286 Mich. App. 634 (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary decisions)
- In re Brock, 193 Mich. App. 652 (preponderance standard for authentication under MRE 901)
- People v. Davie, 225 Mich. App. 592 (discovery remedies and review for abuse of discretion)
- People v. Woolfolk, 304 Mich. App. 450 (single-photograph ID: only permissible where used to confirm prior ID)
- People v. Kachar, 400 Mich. 78 (factors for evaluating reliability of identification)