People v. Dunigan
299 Mich. App. 579
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Defendant was convicted by jury of second-degree home invasion (MCL 750.110a(3)) and sentenced to 5 to 40 years' imprisonment.
- The offense requires entering a dwelling without permission with intent to commit a felony, larceny, or assault, or committing such offenses during entry, presence, or exit.
- The Court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and whether a rational trier could find the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Defendant argued lack of sufficient evidence and that he had a right to be in the dwelling; the court rejected both arguments.
- Circumstantial evidence included: unique access to the cashbox, footprints matching defendant's boots, defendant’s admissions and actions surrounding the cashbox, and gambling-related motive.
- Other issues raised included juror sleeping, right to self-representation, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance claims related to casino records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the evidence sufficient for second-degree home invasion? | Defendant failed to prove he was the intruder; girlfriend-owned dwelling negated breaking. | No sufficient link tying him to the crime; he had a right to be there if he was the occupant's partner. | Evidence sufficient; circumstantial proof supported entry without permission and intent to steal. |
| Did juror sleeping require reversal or a new trial? | Juror sleepiness could prejudice fairness. | Sleepers undermine impartiality; counsel should have sought exclusion. | No reversible error; no showing of prejudice from sleeping juror. |
| Did defendant's request for self-representation violate rights? | Not directly at issue; right to self-representation preserved if unequivocal. | Right to proceed without counsel violated. | Record insufficient to show unequivocal request; no infringement proven. |
| Was prosecutorial misconduct in closing improper regarding uncontroverted testimony? | Prosecutor fairly responded to defense theory that victim's testimony was uncorroborated. | Comment improperly framed victim's testimony as uncontradicted, affecting right against self-incrimination. | Comments were proper given defense theory and court instructions preserved fairness. |
| Did defense counsel's failure to obtain casino records amount to ineffective assistance? | Casino records could have impeached or supported defense theory. | Records could have provided exculpatory evidence and alibi. | No ineffective assistance; strategic decisions favored not admitting records; records did not significantly undermine prosecution. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Ericksen, 288 Mich. App. 192 (2010) (standard of review for sufficiency and circumstantial proof.)
- People v Wolfe, 440 Mich. 508 (1992) (weight and credibility of witnesses; circumstantial evidence permissible.)
- People v Harverson, 291 Mich. App. 171 (2010) (circumstantial evidence admissibility; inferences for jurors.)
- People v Hardiman, 466 Mich. 417 (2002) (juror credibility and weight of evidence vested in jury.)
- People v Toole, 227 Mich. App. 656 (1998) (no breaking if defendant had right to enter.)
- People v Szpara, 196 Mich. App. 270 (1992) (entry rights and ownership considerations in break-and-enter.)
- People v Gonzalez, 468 Mich. 636 (2003) (trial strategy and failure to object as non-meritorious.)
- People v Odom, 276 Mich. App. 407 (2007) (trial strategy and impeachment considerations.)
- People v Matuszak, 263 Mich. App. 42 (2004) (trial strategy; hindsight not allowed.)
- People v Unger, 278 Mich. App. 210 (2008) (juror instruction and presumption of following instructions.)
- People v Dennis, 464 Mich. 567 (2001) (limits on use of defendant's silence.)
- People v Jordan, 275 Mich. App. 659 (2007) (Ginther review—record limitations.)
- People v Ginther, 390 Mich. 436 (1973) (standards for ineffectiveness review.)