People v. Blevins
314 Mich. App. 339
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- A downtown Detroit confrontation led to shots fired: Courtney “Cortez” Smith was killed and Carlos Spearman wounded; Quintin King was convicted as the shooter. Anton Blevins was tried for aiding and abetting (second‑degree murder), multiple assaults with intent to do great bodily harm, and felony‑firearm for allegedly displaying a gun and handing it to King.
- Several friends of the victims gave mixed eyewitness testimony: some later identified Blevins in photo arrays as the man who showed/passed the gun; others either could not place him or said they saw a different person with the gun. Several witnesses had delays between the event and identifications and some had been drinking.
- Defense challenged pretrial photographic arrays as suggestive, sought a new trial based on alleged newly discovered evidence pointing to a different confessor (Mosley/Todd), and argued counsel was ineffective for failing to present expert testimony on eyewitness identification or seek revised jury instructions (relying on NJ's Henderson).
- The prosecutor used a "team" metaphor in closing, argued identification alone could support conviction, and made emotionally charged references to the deceased; defense raised misconduct and instruction error claims.
- Trial court convicted Blevins; on appeal the court affirmed convictions but vacated sentence for resentencing because the trial court scored OV 5 using facts not found by the jury, reducing OV level and changing guideline ranges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Prosecution) | Defendant's Argument (Blevins) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pretrial photographic arrays and in‑court ID | IDs were admissible; any imperfections go to weight, not admissibility | Arrays were unduly suggestive; in‑court IDs were contaminated and unreliable | Court: No clear error in finding arrays not unduly suggestive; identifications admissible; jury could assess reliability |
| Expert testimony / jury instruction on eyewitness ID | Existing jury instruction (M Crim JI 7.8) adequate; expert not required | Counsel ineffective for not presenting expert or seeking Henderson‑style instruction; instruction inadequate | Court: Counsel’s strategy reasonable; failure to present expert or novel instruction not ineffective; instruction not error under Michigan law |
| Aiding‑and‑abetting instruction / "team" theory | Prosecutor’s team metaphor was rhetorical; jury instructed correctly on intent and aiding/abetting | Team rhetoric misstated law and risked conviction by association | Court: Instruction followed People v Robinson; prosecutor’s remarks not reversible; Rosemond not controlling here |
| Prosecutorial misconduct (sympathy, facts not in evidence, denigration) | Arguments were fair inferences and rhetorical; did not shift burden | Closing appealed emotionally and misstated law; prejudiced jury | Court: No misconduct rising to reversal; statements permissible argument and jury told not to treat argument as evidence |
| Sufficiency of evidence for aiding/abetting murder | Passing the gun and showing it sufficed to support intent/abetting; reasonable inferences support conviction | Evidence insufficient to show Blevins intended great bodily harm or aided murder | Court: Evidence sufficient; handing gun during violent confrontation supports inference of intent/knowledge |
| Newly discovered evidence (Todd/Mosley confession) | Trial court properly evaluated credibility and probability of different outcome | Todd’s testimony about Mosley’s jail confession would produce different result; warrants new trial | Court: Trial court did not clearly err or abuse discretion denying new trial; proffered evidence equivocal |
| Sentencing (OV 5 scoring) | Victim‑family testimony supported scoring OV 5 at 15 points | OV 5 should be 0; 15 points based on judge‑found facts not jury‑found | Court: Under Lockridge, scoring OV 5 at 15 was error; reduce OV total and remand for Crosby sentencing/possible resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. McDade, 301 Mich. App. 343 (Mich. Ct. App.) (standard of review for identification admissibility)
- People v. Gray, 457 Mich. 107 (Mich.) (photo identification can be so suggestive as to violate due process)
- People v. Lee, 391 Mich. 618 (Mich.) (fairness of identification judged by totality of circumstances)
- People v. Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich. 38 (Mich.) (ineffective assistance standard)
- People v. Grant, 470 Mich. 477 (Mich.) (ineffective assistance framework)
- People v. Robinson, 475 Mich. 1 (Mich.) (aiding and abetting, natural‑and‑probable‑consequence instruction)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (Mich.) (sufficiency review and deference to jury credibility findings)
- Lockridge v. Michigan, 498 Mich. 358 (Mich.) (sentence‑guidelines sentencing and judge‑found facts; remand/Crosby framework)
- Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 (U.S. 2014) (addressed federal aiding‑and‑abetting statutory context cited by defendant)