People v. Steanhouse
313 Mich. App. 1
Mich. Ct. App.2015Background
- In 2011 Anton Valoppi was found in his basement with a slit throat; Anton identified Alexander Jeremy Steanhouse as the attacker though he did not actually see the assailant. DNA and physical evidence linked Steanhouse to the scene, and stolen property was found in his car.
- Steanhouse testified that a man nicknamed “Chips” (Derrin Evans) was present and committed the assault; Evans gave two inconsistent statements to police and later invoked the Fifth Amendment at trial.
- Prosecutor subpoenaed Evans, alerted the court pretrial that Evans might assert the privilege, and the court appointed counsel for Evans; Evans’s counsel advised him not to testify and Evans refused.
- Defense sought admission of Evans’s out‑of‑court statements under MRE 804(b)(3) (statement against penal interest) and MRE 804(b)(7) (catchall); trial court excluded them as untrustworthy.
- At trial, the prosecutor elicited and used a prior inconsistent interview statement of defendant’s girlfriend McIntyre in closing as substantive evidence; the court instructed jurors they could treat prior inconsistent statements as substantive.
- Jury convicted Steanhouse of assault with intent to commit murder and receiving stolen property; court sentenced him to 30–60 years (upward departure). On appeal, convictions affirmed but remand ordered for Lockridge/Crosby procedure regarding resentencing options.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to present/call Evans as res gestae witness | Prosecution complied with MCL 767.40a and appropriately produced/subpoenaed Evans and notified court of Fifth Amendment issue | Prosecution withheld a res gestae witness and deprived right to present a defense | No plain error: prosecutor disclosed, subpoenaed Evans, Evans invoked Fifth, and exclusion was proper; no deprivation of defense right |
| Trial court’s inquiry re: Evans’s Fifth Amendment claim | Court followed procedure: appointed counsel, held hearing outside jury, relied on counsel’s representation | Court failed to adequately question Evans or make on‑record finding; exclusion improper | No abuse: counsel advised Evans, court appropriately avoided questioning that could incriminate, valid privilege existed |
| Exclusion of Evans’s police statements (MRE 804(b)(3) & (7)) | Statements not sufficiently against penal interest or lacking corroborating indicia of trustworthiness | Statements should have been admitted as exculpatory/res gestae evidence | No abuse: statement was equivocal (presence only), inconsistent, non‑spontaneous, and lacked corroborating circumstances; exclusion proper |
| Use of McIntyre’s prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence & jury instruction | Prosecutor improperly used impeachment statement as substantive evidence; instruction allowing substantive use was erroneous | Statement was cumulative and not outcome‑determinative given other evidence | Court found plain error in substantive use and instruction but harmless given overwhelming other evidence; counsel not ineffective because no reasonable probability of different result |
Key Cases Cited
- Carines v. People, 460 Mich. 750 (standard for plain error review)
- Dyer v. People, 425 Mich. 572 (res gestae witness and Fifth Amendment procedure)
- Paasche v. People, 207 Mich. App. 698 (witness privilege procedure; counsel may not call a witness who will claim the privilege)
- Barrera v. People, 451 Mich. 261 (MRE 804(b)(3) analysis; totality test for statements against penal interest)
- Jenkins v. People, 450 Mich. 249 (purpose of extrinsic impeachment evidence)
- Kilbourn v. People, 454 Mich. 677 (prior inconsistent statement may be used to impeach even if it inculpates defendant)
- Milbourn v. People, 435 Mich. 630 (principle of proportionality in appellate review of sentences)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (facts increasing mandatory minimum must be found by jury)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance standard)