People of Michigan v. Tmando Allen Denson
152916
| Mich. | Jul 17, 2017Background
- In Oct. 2012 defendant Tmando Denson assaulted 17‑year‑old Shamark Woodward after finding Woodward alone with Denson’s 15‑year‑old daughter; the altercation produced multiple lacerations to Woodward. Denson claimed he acted in self‑defense and defense of his daughter; Woodward denied any sexual assault and described a brutal, unprovoked attack.
- At trial the prosecution introduced testimony and questioning about the underlying facts of Denson’s 2002 assault conviction (shooting after a drug‑debt dispute) to rebut Denson’s self‑defense/defense‑of‑others claims. The trial court allowed presentation of the 2002 facts but barred introduction of the conviction record itself unless Denson denied the facts.
- The prosecution repeatedly questioned defense witnesses about the 2002 incident and characterized Denson as having a violent temper in both examination and closing argument.
- The jury convicted Denson of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder; he appealed based on improper admission of other‑acts evidence under MRE 404(b).
- The Michigan Supreme Court, addressing whether the 2002 act was admissible to rebut self‑defense/defense‑of‑others, held the evidence inadmissible because it lacked logical relevance to a proper noncharacter purpose and served only to show propensity; the Court reversed and remanded for a new trial as the error was not harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Denson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under MRE 404(b) of prior 2002 assault to rebut self‑defense/defense‑of‑others | The 2002 act rebuts Denson’s state of mind claim; it shows lack of honest/reasonable belief in need for force | Evidence is improper propensity evidence; prior act is dissimilar and remote, so irrelevant to his state of mind here | Court: prosecution failed to show logical relevance (materiality + probative value); 2002 act not strikingly similar and only showed propensity — inadmissible under MRE 404(b) |
| Whether articulation of a proper purpose suffices for admission | Reciting a permissible purpose (rebut self‑defense) justifies admission | Mere recitation is insufficient; must show how evidence is relevant without propensity inference | Court: articulation alone insufficient; proponent must show an actual intermediate inference other than character that links the prior act to the contested issue |
| Harmless‑error analysis for wrongly admitted other‑acts evidence | Unchallenged corroborating evidence (photos, medical testimony) meant error was harmless | Admission of repeated propensity‑based evidence and prosecutor’s argument likely prejudiced jury | Court: error was not harmless — admission and repeated prosecutorial use of the 2002 act likely undermined verdict reliability; reversal and new trial required |
| Standard for similarity when reliance is on similarity between acts | Similarity between prior act and charged offense supports relevance | Prior act was different in victim, motive, and context — not similar enough | Court: when similarity is the theory, a striking similarity is required; here similarities were insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- People v VanderVliet, 444 Mich 52 (1993) (articulates multi‑prong test for admitting other‑acts evidence under MRE 404(b))
- People v Crawford, 458 Mich 376 (1998) (emphasizes necessity of logical relevance and warns against admitting character evidence disguised as other‑acts evidence)
- People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484 (1999) (standard for harmless‑error review of preserved nonconstitutional errors)
- People v Sabin (After Remand), 463 Mich 43 (2000) (discusses limits on propensity evidence and purposes under MRE 404(b))
- People v Knox, 469 Mich 502 (2004) (examines similarity requirement and exclusion of dissimilar prior acts)
- United States v Sanders, 964 F.2d 295 (4th Cir. 1992) (reversed admission of prior assault used to rebut self‑defense because it only supported a propensity inference)
- United States v Commanche, 577 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 2009) (other‑acts evidence inadmissible when only useful to show violent predisposition and thus to rebut self‑defense)