People v. Smith
498 Mich. 466
| Mich. | 2015Background
- Defendant Smith was convicted of armed robbery and first-degree felony murder based solely on testimony of two witnesses: codefendant Tarence Lard (plea-backed) and Mark Yancy (claimed innocence but admitted involvement and drug use).
- Yancy had been paid $4,000 by the FBI for cooperation in a joint task-force investigation that included information relevant to the Pass homicide; this payment was disclosed at a pretrial hearing to defense counsel and the court via Special Agent Harris.
- At trial Yancy repeatedly denied being paid "for this case" or being paid to "testify," leaving the jury with the impression he had no compensated connection to the prosecution of Smith.
- The prosecutor limited questioning to whether Yancy was paid for his trial testimony, did not correct the misleading impression about FBI payments tied to the investigation, and emphasized Yancy’s denials in closing argument.
- There was no physical evidence linking Smith to the murder; the convictions depended on the credibility contest between Lard and Yancy.
- The Michigan Supreme Court held that the prosecutor breached the duty to correct substantially misleading/false testimony and that the exploitation of that impression created a reasonable likelihood the verdict was affected; convictions vacated and new trial ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Smith) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecution breached duty to correct false or substantially misleading testimony about informant compensation | Prosecutor argued she did not elicit false testimony; Yancy denied being paid to testify and payments were disclosed pretrial | Failure to correct Yancy’s misleading denials about being paid in connection with this case violated due process (Napue/Giglio) | Court: Duty breached — prosecutor exploited misleading testimony and failed to correct; Napue/Giglio violation; new trial granted |
| Whether the uncorrected testimony was material to the verdict | Prosecutor: other credibility issues made any error harmless; jury knew weaknesses | Defendant: case depended on Yancy’s unique appearance of independence; disclosure would have impaired credibility and likely affected verdict | Court: Material — no physical evidence and convictions turned on witness credibility; reasonable likelihood verdict affected |
| Whether Napue relief requires proof of affirmative prosecutorial intent or only knowledge/exploitation | Prosecutor: intent or secrecy required; Brady/secret evidence distinguishes classic cases | Defendant: duty to correct arises even if witness unintentionally misled jury; exploitation in summation compounds harm | Court: Intent not required; prosecutor’s knowledge of pretrial disclosure and her exploitation sufficed to trigger Napue duty |
| Whether speedy-trial claim required relief | People: delay explained; no prejudice shown | Smith: 41-month delay triggered presumption of prejudice after 18 months | Court: Majority declined relief on speedy-trial; concurrence would remand to reassess prejudice under Barker v. Wingo |
Key Cases Cited
- Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (state may not obtain a conviction by knowingly using false testimony; failure to correct can require new trial)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (prosecutor must disclose and correct deals or promises affecting witness credibility)
- People v. Wiese, 425 Mich. 448 (1986) (Michigan recognition of Napue/Giglio duties; duty applies to compensation for cooperation)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (framework for speedy-trial claims; balancing test and presumption of prejudice considerations)
- United States v. Harris, 498 F.2d 1164 (3d Cir. 1974) (prosecutor must correct substantially misleading testimony when government knows it is untrue; need not ferret out ambiguities like defense counsel)