People v. Putman
309 Mich. App. 240
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Defendant Michael Putman was convicted by a jury of two counts of assault with intent to murder, felony-firearm, armed robbery, and second-degree murder; sentences ranged from 2 years (felony-firearm) to 25–50 years (second-degree murder).
- At trial the court administered non‑traditional oaths by asking witnesses to "promise" to testify truthfully rather than using the formal statutory oath language or raising the right hand.
- A police officer testified that he received an anonymous Crime Stoppers tip identifying the shooter as "Mike" who lived on Central, and that this tip led him to investigate Putman and place Putman’s photo in a photographic array.
- Defense presented alibi witnesses; prosecution presented multiple eyewitness identifications and cell‑tower evidence placing defendant near the scene.
- Defendant raised multiple claims on appeal: improper form of oath (and related Confrontation Clause and ineffective‑assistance claims), admission of the anonymous tip (Confrontation Clause / ineffective assistance), other ineffective‑assistance allegations (failure to call brother, inadequate cross‑examination, CRISNET testimony), and alleged inconsistent verdicts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Putman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Form of oath administered to witnesses | Oath as administered satisfied rule-based requirement to "declare" truthful testimony; no particular form required | Court failed to administer statutory oath (MCL 600.1432); thus error, Confrontation violation, and counsel ineffective for not objecting | No plain error. Under MRE 603 no particular form or rites required; questions asking witnesses to "promise" sufficed; objection would have been meritless, so counsel not ineffective |
| 2) Admission of anonymous tip through officer testimony | Testimony explaining why officer investigated Putman was non-hearsay for effect on hearer and lawful; not admitted for truth | Testimony introduced testimonial hearsay (anonymous tip) in violation of Confrontation Clause; counsel ineffective for not objecting | No Confrontation violation. Tip was offered to explain police conduct, not to prove truth of tip; any objection would have been futile, so no ineffective assistance |
| 3) Ineffective assistance — failure to call brother, inadequate impeachment, CRISNET testimony | Trial strategy choices; record does not show what brother would testify; counsel thoroughly cross‑examined and impeached key witnesses; no basis shown for objecting to CRISNET testimony | Counsel unreasonably failed to call brother who could explain cell‑tower evidence, failed to highlight witness biases and misidentifications, and failed to object to CRISNET evidence | No ineffective assistance. Defendant failed to establish factual predicate (no record proof brother’s proposed testimony), counsel’s impeachment and cross‑examination were adequate, and no identified valid objection to CRISNET testimony |
| 4) Alleged inconsistent verdicts (armed robbery and second‑degree murder guilty; acquitted of felony murder) | Inconsistent verdicts are permissible; juries need not follow strict logic | Verdicts inconsistent and require reversal | No relief. Inconsistent verdicts within a single trial are allowed; defendant failed to show jury confusion or compromise |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain‑error standard for unpreserved claims)
- Donkers v Kovach, 277 Mich. App. 366 (MRE 603 permits non‑formal oaths so long as conscience is awakened)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial out‑of‑court statements absent prior opportunity for cross‑examination)
- People v Ginther, 390 Mich. 436 (procedure for evidentiary hearing on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v Wilson, 496 Mich. 91 (inconsistent jury verdicts within a single trial are permissible)