People v. Henry, 305 Mich. App. 127

Background

Henry was convicted by jury of four counts of armed robbery and, in a separate case, one count of armed robbery; he was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 216–420 months for each conviction.
On remand from a prior opinion, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing to address a Fourth Amendment entry without a warrant and ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims, and then affirmed the convictions and sentences.
The robberies occurred at L&L Gas Express in Lansing on November 16, 17, and 20, 2010, and December 2, 2010, and one at a nearby Quality Dairy on December 2, 2010.
Police entered Apartment 104 at 1100 Dorchester within 10–15 minutes of the Jackie’s Diner incident after receiving rapid information from witnesses and a tip that the suspect stayed there.
The entry occurred after observing a slightly open window with pry marks and a potential forced-entry scenario; officers located Henry and Aimery in a back bedroom and later obtained a warrant to search the apartment.
During the investigation, a custodial interrogation occurred in which Henry made incriminating statements; the trial court and appellate court addressed whether Miranda rights were properly waived.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the warrantless entry was justified	Henry argues entry was unlawful absent exigent circumstances.	State contends hot-pursuit and exigent-entry exceptions applied.	Entry deemed lawful under hot pursuit and exigent-circumstances.
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for suppressions-related decisions	Henry asserts ineffective assistance for not moving to suppress seized evidence.	State contends suppression motion would have been futile given lawful entry.	No ineffective assistance; merits-based claim rejected as futile.
Sufficiency of evidence for the November 20 armed robbery	Henry challenges sufficiency of evidence tying him to the November 20 robbery.	State offers eyewitness and circumstantial evidence of identity and modus operandi.	Sufficient evidence established armed robbery beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether Henry validly waived Miranda rights and if statements were admissible	Henry argues waiver was not knowing or voluntary and statements were obtained after improper interrogation.	State contends waiver was valid and interrogation, though flawed, produced harmless error.	Waiver was not unequivocal; statements admitted but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Admissibility and impact of confidential informant testimony	Henry claims Confrontation Clause violation and improper references to informant.	State contends informant testimony was proper and not prejudicial under standards.	Informant testimony tainted by testimonial statements but not outcome-determinative; no reversal.

Key Cases Cited

Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294 (1967) (hot pursuit and exigent circumstances recognized)
People v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (1980) (interrogation includes functional equivalent, revising scope)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (unambiguous waiver of Miranda rights required; explicit invocation)
People v. White, 493 Mich. 187 (2013) (Miranda interrogation analysis; reaffirmed Innis framework)
People v. Adams, 245 Mich. App. 226 (2001) (contextual evaluation of equivocal invocations; not purely word-based)
People v. Crawford, 458 Mich. 376 (1998) (limiting instruction considerations for hearsay/taint)
United States v. Woods, 711 F.3d 737 (2013) (functional equivalent of interrogation; automatic questioning considerations)
Cortez (On Remand), 299 Mich. App. 679 (2013) (custody and interrogation standards; related discussion)