People v. Jackson
292 Mich. App. 583
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Defendant was convicted by a jury of first-degree premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit murder, assault with intent to commit murder, and felony-firearm; life terms for murder and conspiracy, 225 months to 40 years for assault, with sentences concurrent to felony-firearm consecutively to the two-year term.
- The killings occurred on September 28, 2007 in Detroit: Bennie Peterson was killed; Donteau Dennis was wounded.
- Codefendants Mason and Hickey participated; Mason lured victims to a drug-dealing trap and drove; defendant followed in a Jeep; they blocked the minivan and Shot Peterson as Hickey shot Dennis.
- Dennis identified defendant at trial and gave statements implicating him while Dennis was hospitalized; police later relied on Dennis’s trial testimony.
- The jury could infer a premeditated plan to kill Peterson and Dennis and to aid and abet the assaults, supported by evidence that defendant was armed during the offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Nowack: evidence supports premeditated murder and conspiracy | Hickey/defendant dispute credibility and inferential proof | Sufficient evidence supported all convictions |
| Discovery violation | Prosecution violated MCR 6.201 by omitting transcript; material exculpatory evidence | Omission not due to willful conduct; no due-process violation | No due-process violation; remedy not an abuse of discretion |
| Juror misconduct | Potential taint from dismissed juror; court failed to re-question remaining jurors | Plain error and denial of impartial jury | No plain error; trial court acted within discretion to proceed without re-questioning remaining jurors |
| Admissibility of Nurse Otsuji’s statements; Confrontation Clause | Nurse’s reports admissible as language conduit; Dennis’s statements not testimonial deprivation of confrontation rights | Hearsay and confrontation rights violated | Language-conduit rule applied; no plain constitutional error; confrontation rights satisfied |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to provide discovery and should have requested addict-informant instruction | Counsel performance below standard and prejudicial | No reversible error; no sufficient showing of deficient performance or prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Nowack v. People, 462 Mich 392 (2000) (sufficiency of evidence; standard of review)
- Sexton v. People, 250 Mich App 211 (2002) (circumstantial evidence and credibility issues in sufficiency review)
- Harrison v. People, 283 Mich App 374 (2009) (credibility resolved by jury; witness testimony evaluation)
- Justice (After Remand) v. Justice, 454 Mich 334 (1997) (elements of conspiracy; intent and agreement requirements)
- Davis v. People, 216 Mich App 47 (1996) (assault with intent to commit murder; proof of intent to kill by inference)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause; testimonial statements require cross-examination unless unavailable)
- Lonsby v. People, 268 Mich App 375 (2005) (Confrontation and admissibility considerations in testimonial contexts)
- Nazemian v. United States, 948 F.2d 522 (1991) (language-conduit rule; interpreter as conduit for declarant’s statements)
- Banks v. People, 249 Mich App 247 (2002) (due-process discovery rules; balancing remedies for violations)