People v. McDade, 301 Mich. App. 343

Defendant, age 17 at the time, was convicted by jury of first-degree murder and multiple felonies, with a mandatory life sentence without parole for the murder count, later vacated and remanded for Miller/Carp-compliant resentencing.
The homicide occurred July 14, 2010 in Kalamazoo; Warren allegedly arranged marijuana resale and defendant remained at a Washington Avenue house where the shooting occurred.
Jenkins was killed; Ewell, Freeman, and Stafford testified or were identified as participants; Warren testified to accompanying defendant earlier, and Warren’s or others’ accounts were inconsistent.
Three jailhouse notes passed among Kellumn, Stafford, and defendant were admitted; handwriting authentication, hearsay, and confrontation issues were raised.
Stafford’s videotaped police interviews were admitted under MRE 804(b)(6) after Kellumn’s purported statement and notes suggesting attempted intimidation to silence a witness.
The court upheld most identifications and denied suppression of photographic/corporeal lineup evidence, then sua sponte considered Miller/Carp sentencing guidance and remanded for resentencing on the murder conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of jailhouse notes	Notes are unauthenticated hearsay.	Notes should be excluded as inadmissible without authentication.	Notes authenticated; hearsay exceptions/applicable; admissible.
Confrontation Clause and Stafford interviews	Admission violated confrontation rights by relying on out-of-court statements.	Forfeiture by wrongdoing and reliability support admission.	No Confrontation Clause error; harmless given multiple identifications.
Handwriting expert necessity	Expert handwriting analysis needed to determine authorship of notes.	Expert appointment required to assess authenticity and confrontation implications.	No error; trial court could rely on other credible evidence to infer involvement.
Identification evidence admissibility	Lineups were unduly suggestive and violated due process.	Lineups were unduly suggestive and improper.	Lineups not unduly suggestive; ample independent basis for identifications; no reversal.
Miller/Carp sentencing issue	Miller/Carp do not apply retroactively to collateral review; life sentence appropriate.	Juvenile status at time of crime requires Miller/Carp-based consideration of youth characteristics for parole eligibility.	Remand for resentencing consistent with Miller and Carp; not retroactive collateral attack.

Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (U.S. 2012) (juvenile life-without-parole sentences unconstitutional without youth considerations)
Carp v. Michigan, 828 N.W.2d 685 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (guidance on Miller application in Michigan cases)
People v. Gursky, 486 Mich. 596 (2010) (authentication and admissibility standards for evidence)
People v. Barrett, 480 Mich. 125 (2008) (precedent on admissibility of non-privileged evidence and trial procedures)
People v. Berkey, 437 Mich. 40 (1991) (authentication and admissibility principles)
Jones v. Michigan, 270 Mich. App. 208 (2006) (forfeiture by wrongdoing and confrontation framework)
People v. Dendel (On Second Remand), 289 Mich. App. 445 (2010) (Confrontation Clause analysis and admissibility interplay)
People v. Kurylczyk, 443 Mich. 289 (1993) (standard for evaluating suggestiveness of lineups)
People v. Holmes, 132 Mich. App. 730 (1984) (lineup comparability and impermissible suggestiveness factors)
People v. Dean, 103 Mich. App. 1 (1981) (photographic array suggestiveness considerations)
People v. Gray, 457 Mich. 107 (1998) (due process in identifications and independent basis for in-court identification)
Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008) (forfeiture by wrongdoing standard for Confrontation Clause)
People v. Shepherd, 472 Mich. 343 (2005) (harmless error analysis in Confrontation Clause context)
People v. Carpenter, 298 Mich. App. 472 (2012) (Miller framework in Michigan appellate context)