People of Michigan v. William Joseph Sherwood
330595
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 18, 2017Background
- On Feb 7, 2015 police stopped a vehicle driven by Nichole Bunn; a K-9 alerted to narcotics and officers found items in the vehicle consistent with meth production.
- Footprints and a dog track from a nearby party store led officers to apartment #5 where consenting occupant Corey Parker let them in; police found a wall cavity with a bottle containing liquid, bubbles, and burnt metal and other meth-manufacturing items.
- Amanda Iafrate (found intoxicated in the apartment) testified she bought pseudoephedrine, turned it over to Sherwood, and saw Sherwood and Parker ‘‘shake’’ a bottle while Sherwood was the main person making meth; Parker allegedly injected Iafrate.
- NPLEx logs tied Sherwood to multiple pseudoephedrine purchases around the relevant dates. Sherwood’s recorded police interview admitted purchasing pseudoephedrine and being present when meth was made but denied knowing how to make it or making it at Parker’s apartment.
- A jury convicted Sherwood of operating/maintaining a methamphetamine laboratory; he was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 240 months–40 years. Sherwood appealed raising evidentiary, jury-instruction, and ineffective-assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Toth’s testimony recounting Bunn identifying Sherwood at the party store | Testimony provided context for the stop and search | Testimony was hearsay and inadmissible | No plain error: statement admissible for context and defendant failed to preserve objection |
| Admission of Stefaniak’s testimony recounting Bunn’s statement about not buying Sudafed after July 2014 | Testimony was statement against interest (MRE 804(b)(3)) and admissible because Bunn unavailable | Testimony was hearsay and inadmissible because Bunn was available | Court: admission under 804(b)(3) was erroneous but harmless (not outcome-determinative) |
| Authentication of apartment photographs where detective did not take photos or observe items in situ | Photos accurately depicted items given to detective; authenticated by his knowledge of items | Photos not properly authenticated as he did not see them in place | No abuse of discretion: detective’s personal knowledge of the items was sufficient for authentication |
| Failure to give accomplice cautionary (M Crim JI 5.5/5.6) and tracking-dog (M Crim JI 4.14) instructions; alternatively ineffective assistance for not requesting them | Jury should have been instructed to view Iafrate (and Bunn if applicable) cautiously as possible accomplices and to limit tracking-dog weight | Court already instructed jury about immunity and bias; defendant waived instruction objections by affirming instructions; counsel strategy | Waiver of instructional objection; ineffective-assistance claim fails — even if instructions omitted, no reasonable probability result would differ |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Carines, 460 Mich 750 (plain-error standard for unpreserved appellate review) (establishes three-step Carines test)
- People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484 (harmless-error framework — outcome-determinative test)
- People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210 (abuse-of-discretion review for admissibility decisions)
- People v Eady, 409 Mich 356 (definition and inadmissibility of hearsay)
- People v McGhee, 268 Mich App 600 (accomplice-instruction required on request when evidence supports accomplice status)
- People v Kowalski, 489 Mich 488 (defendant who expressly approves jury instructions waives objection)
- People v Stanaway, 446 Mich 643 (ineffective-assistance standard regarding deference to trial strategy)