People of Michigan v. Terry Terrell Clark
330713
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- On July 1, 2015, Terry Terrell Clark shot a handgun toward Earl Hall and his family after a confrontation near Clark’s house; Clark admitted firing but claimed he shot reflexively to scare off Hall’s dog.
- Earl and his wife Nicole testified Clark fired one shot at the family; Earl called 911 about 40 minutes after the incident.
- Clark was convicted by a jury of felonious assault (MCL 750.82) and felony-firearm (MCL 750.227b); sentenced to time served for assault and two years for felony-firearm.
- Clark appealed, challenging (1) admission of Earl’s 911 recording as hearsay not within the excited-utterance exception and as improper bolstering, (2) prosecutor’s use of Earl’s prior written statement, (3) that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence, and (4) prosecutorial misconduct in closing.
- The trial court admitted the 911 recording as an excited utterance and allowed limited questioning about the written police statement; the jury convicted and the trial court denied a new trial.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the evidentiary rulings within discretion or harmless, the verdict not against the great weight of the evidence, and no reversible prosecutorial misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Clark) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of 911 recording (hearsay / excited utterance) | 911 call was admissible under MRE 803(2) because Earl remained under stress when he called. | 911 call made ~40 minutes after shooting; Earl had time to fabricate and confer with Nicole, so not an excited utterance. | Court: Affirmed admission — trial court did not abuse discretion; focus is declarant’s lack of capacity to fabricate, and testimony showed Earl was still in shock. |
| Improper bolstering / prior consistent statements (911 & written police statement) | Statements were admissible or harmless: 911 was cumulative; prosecutor used written statement to explain inconsistencies, not to bolster. | 911 and questioning about the written statement improperly bolstered Earl’s credibility. | Court: Even if improper, error harmless because evidence of shooting and central credibility issues were unchanged; no outcome-determinative prejudice. |
| Verdict against great weight of the evidence | People argued jury verdict based on credibility and evidence was sufficient. | Clark argued Earl was so impeached (felony dishonesty, Facebook post, inconsistent witness statements, officer testimony) that verdict was a miscarriage of justice. | Court: Denial of new trial affirmed — inconsistencies go to credibility; jury’s determinations stand absent deprivation of all probative value. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (vouching; denigrating defense counsel) | Prosecutor’s comments addressed evidence and responded to defense argument; any improper remark was cured by instruction. | Statements vouched for witness honesty and disparaged defense counsel, depriving Clark of fair trial. | Court: No reversible error — limited vouching cured by instruction; comments responding to defense did not improperly suggest counsel intended to mislead. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Mardlin, 487 Mich 609 (trial-court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- People v. Musser, 494 Mich 337 (definition and treatment of hearsay and excited-utterance analysis)
- People v. Smith, 456 Mich 543 (excited-utterance rationale: lack of capacity to fabricate; harmless-error framework)
- People v. Lukity, 460 Mich 484 (standard for reversal for nonconstitutional evidentiary error — outcome determinative test)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich 750 (plain-error standard for unpreserved claims affecting substantial rights)