People v. Cain
299 Mich. App. 27
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Defendant was convicted by a jury of carjacking, UDAA, two counts of receiving and concealing a stolen motor vehicle, felon-in-possession, and felony-firearm.
- The June 4, 2010 carjacking occurred in Detroit; the victim, Spires, was forced from his Saturn at gunpoint and his belongings were stolen.
- Police later observed the Saturn in a backyard with two black males nearby, including defendant, and a second stolen vehicle (Ford Explorer) in the yard.
- A photographic lineup identified defendant; there was evidence linking him to the crime, including a key for the Saturn and bullets found on him.
- The defense challenged various prosecutorial and trial-court conduct issues, and defendant asserted suppression and jurisdictional challenges that followed the trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial conduct plain error | Spires’ credibility was improperly vouched for. | Prosecutor's statements were improper bolstering of credibility. | No plain error; statements within proper inference and trial context. |
| Trial court reference to defendant as perpetrator | Court’s remark improperly directed verdict. | Remark violated right to a fair trial. | Not outcome-determinative; no reversible error. |
| Double jeopardy: carjacking vs UDAA | Carjacking and UDAA are the same offense. | They are the same offense; multiple punishments barred. | carjacking and UDAA do not violate double jeopardy; Williams controls; UDAA contains a different element. |
| Suppression of evidence and probable cause | Arrest lacking probable cause; suppress evidence. | Evidence should be suppressed due to unlawful arrest. | Probable cause existed; suppression not warranted. |
| Lineup identification admissibility | In-custody photo lineup permissible under exceptions. | Lineup was impermissibly suggestive. | Lineup was proper and not unduly suggestive. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210 (2008) (plain error review for prosecutorial misconduct; preservation rules)
- People v Callon, 256 Mich App 312 (2003) (plain error review; curative instructions considerations)
- People v Seals, 285 Mich App 1 (2009) (contextual review of prosecutorial conduct)
- People v Bennett, 290 Mich App 465 (2010) (prosecutorial latitude in argument; defense challenges)
- People v Meissner, 294 Mich App 438 (2011) (prosecutor credibility arguments; Bahoda cite)
- People v Bahoda, 448 Mich 261 (1995) (prosecutorial misrepresentation of witness credibility)
- People v Williams, 491 Mich 164 (2012) (statutory interpretation of robbery/carljacking; complete larceny not required)
- People v Williams, 288 Mich App 67 (2010) (carjacking analogous to robbery; amended statute includes attempts)
- People v Dixon, 509 US 688 (1993) (same-elements test for double jeopardy (US Supreme Court))
- People v Smith, 478 Mich 292 (2007) (same-elements test in Michigan double jeopardy analysis)
- People v Bearss, 463 Mich 623 (2001) (jury determination on all elements; no directed verdict)
- Manning v. Manning, 243 Mich App 615 (2000) (probable cause; arrest warrant standards)
- Mallory, 421 Mich 229 (1984) (arraignment delays; remedies for delays)