People of Michigan v. Terry Bostic Henry, 327414

Background

On Oct. 11, 2014, Detroit officers stopped Terry Henry and found a 9mm Ruger with 5 rounds in his waistband after Henry ran into a vacant house; Henry was charged with felon-in-possession (weapon and ammunition), carrying a concealed weapon, and felony-firearm.
Officers testified Henry was walking in the street, refused to stop, clutched his waistband, and ran into a vacant house where Officer Peugh recovered the handgun during a pat-down; officers asked Henry if he had a permit and he answered he did not.
Defense witness DeAndre Calvin testified a different sequence: the group were on the sidewalk, officers detained others first, Calvin and defendants were held in a vacant ‘‘clubhouse,’’ a K-9 unit searched upstairs and outside, and officers repeatedly asked about a gun.
At a bench trial the court credited the officers over Calvin, found the People proved possession beyond a reasonable doubt, and convicted Henry on all counts; sentence was probation on the possession/CCW counts and two years’ imprisonment for felony-firearm.
On appeal Henry raised: (1) alleged improper burden-shifting by the trial court; (2) ineffective assistance for failing to object to an un-Mirandized statement that he lacked a permit; (3) entitlement to a new trial based on a K-9 unit activity log (newly discovered evidence); and (4) a Brady claim for nondisclosure of that log. This Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Henry)	Held
Whether trial court impermissibly shifted burden of proof by saying “no one ever had an explanation for that gun”	The court’s findings show it evaluated evidence and met its burden proving each element.	Trial court required Henry to explain the presence of the gun, shifting burden to defendant.	No; court properly weighed credibility and accepted prosecution’s proof—no burden shift.
Whether defense counsel was ineffective for failing to suppress Henry’s un‑Mirandized admission he lacked a permit	Admission was not outcome-determinative; court relied on officer testimony and the gun itself.	Counsel should have objected/moved to suppress the custodial statement; failure was ineffective assistance.	No; even if admissibility were questionable, Henry was not prejudiced because conviction rested on independent evidence.
Whether K-9 unit activity log is newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial	N/A (People opposed); trial court already considered testimony about a K-9 presence.	The log (showing K-9 on scene 7:30–8:45 p.m.) is new, noncumulative, and would likely change outcome.	No; log was not "newly discovered" (defense knew K-9 was called) and would not probably change the result.
Whether prosecution violated Brady by not disclosing the K-9 log	If material, prosecution must disclose; but here the log was immaterial to outcome.	Suppression of the log deprived Henry of impeachment evidence and violated due process.	No Brady violation; the log was tangential/impeaching and immaterial because the trial court already credited K-9 testimony but found other evidence sufficient.

Key Cases Cited

People v Hartwick, 498 Mich 192 (2015) (prosecution must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt)
People v Lanzo Constr. Co., 272 Mich App 470 (2006) (appellate review standards for trial-court findings)
People v Kanaan, 278 Mich App 594 (2008) (deference to trial court on witness credibility)
People v Milstead, 250 Mich App 391 (2002) (appellate courts will not reassess credibility)
People v Lopez, 305 Mich App 686 (2014) (preservation required for ineffective-assistance claims)
People v Heft, 299 Mich App 69 (2012) (review limited to error apparent on the record when claim unpreserved)
People v Cortez (On Remand), 299 Mich App 679 (2013) (Miranda warnings required for custodial interrogation)
People v Douglas, 496 Mich 557 (2014) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test)
People v Comella, 296 Mich App 643 (2012) (defendant must show he would have prevailed on suppression claim)
People v Goodin, 257 Mich App 425 (2003) (no prejudice where conviction rests on independent evidence)
People v Cress, 468 Mich 678 (2003) (standards for new trial based on newly discovered evidence)
People v Rao, 491 Mich 271 (2012) (when evidence is not "newly discovered")
People v Grissom, 492 Mich 296 (2012) (courts reluctant to grant new trials for newly discovered evidence)
People v Jackson, 292 Mich App 583 (2011) (Brady duty to disclose exculpatory/impeaching evidence)
People v Chenault, 495 Mich 142 (2014) (Brady materiality standard)
Miranda v Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial interrogation requires warnings)
Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence)