People v. Roscoe, 303 Mich. App. 633

Defendant was convicted by jury of first-degree felony murder, safe breaking, breaking and entering with intent to commit a larceny, and assaulting, resisting, or obstructing a police officer; sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to life without parole for felony murder and additional prison terms for other offenses.
The convictions stem from a breaking and entering at Jim Bradley’s Pontiac dealership in Ann Arbor, which resulted in the death of a night employee.
Defendant and his cousin Jonathon Aiden allegedly broke into the dealership seeking paint and chemical hardeners; a night worker discovered them, was struck, and the victims were left injured after a vehicle was used against him.
The trial admitted the victim’s August 23, 2006 statement identifying defendant as the attacker under the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing rule, which also implicated confrontation rights.
The defense challenged admission of the other-acts evidence (2000 snowmobile/theft, 2008 granite/materials theft, and three 1991 dealership thefts) under MRE 404(b) as improper but argued they were not prejudicial.
On appeal, defendant claimed issues including evidentiary errors, ineffective assistance, other-acts admissibility, and Standard 4 briefing challenges; the court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of victim's August 23 statement under MRE 804(b)(6)	Defendant argues the statement was improperly admitted and violated confrontation.	Defendant contends the trial court failed to prove requisite intent to render the witness unavailable.	Error occurred but not outcome determinative; admission did not require reversal.
Ineffective assistance for failing to object on confrontation grounds	Defense claim asserts ineffective assistance due to not raising confrontation-based objection.	Counsel did not deficiently perform; strategy and evidence overlapped with evidentiary issues.	No reversible error; no reasonable probability the outcome would differ.
Admission of other-acts evidence under MRE 404(b)	Acts showing a common scheme to break into dealerships are probative and admissible.	Prejudicial and improper prior acts should have been excluded.	Court did not abuse discretion; evidence probative of scheme and properly limited.
Standard 4 issues: judge disqualification, prosecutorial misconduct, and alternate juror handling	Challenges to judge disqualification and alleged prosecutorial misconduct; alternate juror handling errors.	Arguments of bias, misconduct, and error in selection were raised to overturn conviction.	No reversible error; rulings and conduct did not deny due process or require reversal.

Burns v. People, 494 Mich 104 (2013) (establishes tests for evidentiary and confrontation errors with forfeiture rule)
Carines v. People, 460 Mich 750 (1999) (plain-error standard for unpreserved constitutional claims)
Coy v. People, 258 Mich App 1 (2003) (confrontation rights in unpreserved challenges; plain error analysis)
Ginther v. People, 390 Mich 436 (1973) (Ginther framework for ineffective-assistance review on appeal)
Unger v. People, 278 Mich App 210 (2008) (presumed effective assistance; hindsight not allowed on trial strategy)
VanderVliet v. People, 444 Mich 52 (1993) (test for admissibility of other-acts evidence and balancing probative value vs prejudice)
Graves v. People, 458 Mich 476 (1998) (limiting instruction can mitigate unfair prejudice in MRE 404(b) evidence)