People of Michigan v. Tyrone Howell
331901
Mich. Ct. App.Dec 14, 2017Background
- On July 27, 2015, after an argument with his cousin Robert Jenkins, Tyrone Howell threatened to return and "spray" Jenkins's house; shortly thereafter gunfire struck Jenkins's home and nearby houses and vehicles.
- Jenkins testified he saw Howell immediately after the shooting standing on the sidewalk holding what appeared to be an AK-47; Howell then fled.
- Howell was convicted after a bench trial of: discharge of a firearm at a building; felonious assault; felony-firearm; being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition; and malicious destruction of property.
- At sentencing Howell was treated as a habitual offender (second habitual offender ultimately). The court of appeals previously remanded to allow resentencing on an alleged erroneous habitual-offender tier, but on remand the sentence remained the same.
- Howell appealed, raising (1) lack of a written proof of service of the habitual-offender notice under MCL 769.13(2); (2) various evidentiary and Confrontation Clause errors; (3) prosecutorial misconduct; (4) insufficiency of the evidence; and (5) ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Habitual-offender proof of service under MCL 769.13(2) | Prosecution complied sufficiently; defendant waived defect by acknowledging habitual-offender status | No written proof of service in court file; statutory requirement not met — requires resentencing | Court: Statutory filing error existed but harmless; defendant waived objection by accepting status and suffered no prejudice; no resentencing required |
| Confrontation Clause / hearsay (statements by defendant's brother) | Statement was nontestimonial or harmless; did not implicate Confrontation Clause | Admission of out-of-court statements (what Demetrius said) violated Confrontation Clause | Court: Statements were nontestimonial or, if testimonial, harmless given Jenkins’s eyewitness ID; no constitutional violation affecting substantial rights |
| Admission of photograph of Howell holding a gun | Photo used to impeach witness credibility; probative for that purpose; bench trial minimizes unfair prejudice | Photo was irrelevant/other-acts and unduly prejudicial | Court: Admission was proper for attacking witness credibility; even if error, not outcome-determinative in a bench trial given strong eyewitness evidence |
| Sufficiency of evidence (discharge at building, felonious assault, felony-firearm) | Jenkins’s eyewitness ID plus circumstantial evidence proved elements beyond a reasonable doubt | Insufficient because of alleged misidentification, hearsay reliance, inconsistent statements | Court: Viewing evidence in prosecutor’s favor, a rational trier of fact could convict; elements of each offense proven |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cain, 498 Mich. 108 (plain-error standard for unpreserved claims)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain-error test articulated)
- People v. Jackson, 292 Mich. App. 583 (distinguishing testimonial vs. nontestimonial statements)
- People v. Brooks, 453 Mich. 511 (MRE 401/403 balancing and relevance)
- People v. Jenkins, 450 Mich. 249 (use of prior statements for impeachment)
- People v. Smith, 498 Mich. 466 (prosecutor’s duty regarding false testimony)
- People v. Sherman-Huffman, 466 Mich. 39 (bench-trial judge presumed to know law and disregard inadmissible evidence)