prosecutor committed error in Michigan

2016People v Brownridge (On Remand), 237 Mich App 210, 216 ; 602 NW2d 584 (1999).

2016People v Brownridge (On Remand), 237 Mich App 210, 216 ; 602 NW2d 584 (1999).

2020Because that did not occur here, we apply the plain-error rule, which requires that “1) error must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights.” People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).

2020Because that did not occur here, we apply the plain-error rule, which requires that “1) error must have occurred, 2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, 3) and the plain error affected substantial rights.” People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).

2017The prosecutor initially confirmed the boyfriend’s prior testimony that he had “met [defendant] after she got out of jail.” The prosecutor then asked him if he was with defendant “when she was arrested,” presumably referring to her arrest for the current offense, and the witness responded “not this time.” The prosecutor later asked whether “there [had] been a time in the past when [defendant] was arrested in your residence.” Although this Court has held that prosecutors have a special obligation to avoid areas of testimony that may unfairly prejudice a defendant, People v McCarver (On Remand),

2017The prosecutor initially confirmed the boyfriend’s prior testimony that he had “met [defendant] after she got out of jail.” The prosecutor then asked him if he was with defendant “when she was arrested,” presumably referring to her arrest for the current offense, and the witness responded “not this time.” The prosecutor later asked whether “there [had] been a time in the past when [defendant] was arrested in your residence.” Although this Court has held that prosecutors have a special obligation to avoid areas of testimony that may unfairly prejudice a defendant, People v McCarver (On Remand),

2017The prosecutor initially confirmed the boyfriend’s prior testimony that he had “met [defendant] after she got out of jail.” The prosecutor then asked him if he was with defendant “when she was arrested,” presumably referring to her arrest for the current offense, and the witness responded “not this time.” The prosecutor later asked whether “there [had] been a time in the past when [defendant] was arrested in your residence.” Although this Court has held that prosecutors have a special obligation to avoid areas of testimony that may unfairly prejudice a defendant, People v McCarver (On Remand),

2017The prosecutor initially confirmed the boyfriend’s prior testimony that he had “met [defendant] after she got out of jail.” The prosecutor then asked him if he was with defendant “when she was arrested,” presumably referring to her arrest for the current offense, and the witness responded “not this time.” The prosecutor later asked whether “there [had] been a time in the past when [defendant] was arrested in your residence.” Although this Court has held that prosecutors have a special obligation to avoid areas of testimony that may unfairly prejudice a defendant, People v McCarver (On Remand),

2016We agree. “[T]he test for prosecutorial misconduct is whether a defendant was denied a fair and impartial trial.” People v Dobek, 274 Mich App 58, 63 ; 732 NW2d 546 (2007).

2016We agree. “[T]he test for prosecutorial misconduct is whether a defendant was denied a fair and impartial trial.” People v Dobek, 274 Mich App 58, 63 ; 732 NW2d 546 (2007).

2026Defendant also argues that the prosecutor committed error by “contradict[ing] the evidence to spread false and misleading information not to seek justice but just another conviction,” and violated Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 ; 83 S Ct 1194 ; 10 L Ed 2d 215 (1963), by failing to disclose the video recording from a residence near the shooting.

2026Defendant also argues that the prosecutor committed error by “contradict[ing] the evidence to spread false and misleading information not to seek justice but just another conviction,” and violated Brady v Maryland, 373 US 83 ; 83 S Ct 1194 ; 10 L Ed 2d 215 (1963), by failing to disclose the video recording from a residence near the shooting.

2026PROSECUTORIAL ERROR6 Finally, defendant argues that the prosecutor committed error when eliciting irrelevant and highly prejudicial information from defendant’s former partner, Vanston, or alternatively, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to this testimony.7 Because defendant has not established that the prosecution committed error, or that defendant’s trial counsel’s decision not to call the jury’s attention to the allegedly inflammatory comments made in response to his own questioning was unreasonable, we disagree that defendant is entitled to relief on these grounds. 6

2026PROSECUTORIAL ERROR6 Finally, defendant argues that the prosecutor committed error when eliciting irrelevant and highly prejudicial information from defendant’s former partner, Vanston, or alternatively, that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to this testimony.7 Because defendant has not established that the prosecution committed error, or that defendant’s trial counsel’s decision not to call the jury’s attention to the allegedly inflammatory comments made in response to his own questioning was unreasonable, we disagree that defendant is entitled to relief on these grounds. 6

2020“In order to preserve a claim of prosecutorial misconduct for appellate review, a defendant must have timely and specifically objected below, unless objection could not have cured the error.” People v Brown, 294 Mich App 377, 382 ; 811 NW2d 531 (2011).

2020“In order to preserve a claim of prosecutorial misconduct for appellate review, a defendant must have timely and specifically objected below, unless objection could not have cured the error.” People v Brown, 294 Mich App 377, 382 ; 811 NW2d 531 (2011).

2020PROSECUTORIAL ERROR Jones argues that the prosecutor committed error by referring to the victim as “mentally slow” without providing evidence “to prove the [victim’s] mental disability.” Jones also argues that the prosecutor improperly “implie[d] that [the victim] should be allowed more chances to give truthful testimony than are usually allowed before a witness is deemed as not credible.” We disagree that the prosecutor’s comments amounted to prosecutorial error. “[T]o preserve an issue of prosecutorial [error], a defendant must contemporaneously object and request a curative instruction.” Pe

2019“A prosecutor may not imply in closing argument that the defendant must prove something or present a reasonable explanation for damaging evidence because such an argument tends to shift the burden of proof.” People v Fyda, 288 Mich App 446, 463-464 ; 793 NW2d 712 (2010).

2019“A prosecutor may not imply in closing argument that the defendant must prove something or present a reasonable explanation for damaging evidence because such an argument tends to shift the burden of proof.” People v Fyda, 288 Mich App 446, 463-464 ; 793 NW2d 712 (2010).

2019We consider issues of prosecutorial error “on a case-by-case basis by examining the record and evaluating the remarks in context, and in light of defendant’s arguments.” People v Thomas, 260 Mich App 450, 454 ; 678 NW2d 631 (2004).

2019We consider issues of prosecutorial error “on a case-by-case basis by examining the record and evaluating the remarks in context, and in light of defendant’s arguments.” People v Thomas, 260 Mich App 450, 454 ; 678 NW2d 631 (2004).

2016See People v Cooper, 309 Mich App 74, 87-88 ; 867 NW2d 452 (2015). 24 People v Pfaffle, 246 Mich App 282, 288 ; 632 NW2d 162 (2001). 25 People v Dobek, 274 Mich App 58, 76 ; 732 NW2d 546 (2007). 26 People v Seals, 285 Mich App 1, 22 ; 776 NW2d 314 (2009). 27 Specifically, Fish contends that the prosecutor was required to elicit the potential penalties Waupoose faced under his plea agreement, as compared to the charges he could have faced absent the agreement. 28 People v Mumford, 183 Mich App 149, 152 ; 455 NW2d 51 (1990) (quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). 29 It is not at all c

2016See People v Cooper, 309 Mich App 74, 87-88 ; 867 NW2d 452 (2015). 24 People v Pfaffle, 246 Mich App 282, 288 ; 632 NW2d 162 (2001). 25 People v Dobek, 274 Mich App 58, 76 ; 732 NW2d 546 (2007). 26 People v Seals, 285 Mich App 1, 22 ; 776 NW2d 314 (2009). 27 Specifically, Fish contends that the prosecutor was required to elicit the potential penalties Waupoose faced under his plea agreement, as compared to the charges he could have faced absent the agreement. 28 People v Mumford, 183 Mich App 149, 152 ; 455 NW2d 51 (1990) (quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). 29 It is not at all c

2016See People v Cooper, 309 Mich App 74, 87-88 ; 867 NW2d 452 (2015). 24 People v Pfaffle, 246 Mich App 282, 288 ; 632 NW2d 162 (2001). 25 People v Dobek, 274 Mich App 58, 76 ; 732 NW2d 546 (2007). 26 People v Seals, 285 Mich App 1, 22 ; 776 NW2d 314 (2009). 27 Specifically, Fish contends that the prosecutor was required to elicit the potential penalties Waupoose faced under his plea agreement, as compared to the charges he could have faced absent the agreement. 28 People v Mumford, 183 Mich App 149, 152 ; 455 NW2d 51 (1990) (quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). 29 It is not at all c

2016See People v Cooper, 309 Mich App 74, 87-88 ; 867 NW2d 452 (2015). 24 People v Pfaffle, 246 Mich App 282, 288 ; 632 NW2d 162 (2001). 25 People v Dobek, 274 Mich App 58, 76 ; 732 NW2d 546 (2007). 26 People v Seals, 285 Mich App 1, 22 ; 776 NW2d 314 (2009). 27 Specifically, Fish contends that the prosecutor was required to elicit the potential penalties Waupoose faced under his plea agreement, as compared to the charges he could have faced absent the agreement. 28 People v Mumford, 183 Mich App 149, 152 ; 455 NW2d 51 (1990) (quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). 29 It is not at all c

2016See People v Cooper, 309 Mich App 74, 87-88 ; 867 NW2d 452 (2015). 24 People v Pfaffle, 246 Mich App 282, 288 ; 632 NW2d 162 (2001). 25 People v Dobek, 274 Mich App 58, 76 ; 732 NW2d 546 (2007). 26 People v Seals, 285 Mich App 1, 22 ; 776 NW2d 314 (2009). 27 Specifically, Fish contends that the prosecutor was required to elicit the potential penalties Waupoose faced under his plea agreement, as compared to the charges he could have faced absent the agreement. 28 People v Mumford, 183 Mich App 149, 152 ; 455 NW2d 51 (1990) (quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). 29 It is not at all c

2016See People v Cooper, 309 Mich App 74, 87-88 ; 867 NW2d 452 (2015). 24 People v Pfaffle, 246 Mich App 282, 288 ; 632 NW2d 162 (2001). 25 People v Dobek, 274 Mich App 58, 76 ; 732 NW2d 546 (2007). 26 People v Seals, 285 Mich App 1, 22 ; 776 NW2d 314 (2009). 27 Specifically, Fish contends that the prosecutor was required to elicit the potential penalties Waupoose faced under his plea agreement, as compared to the charges he could have faced absent the agreement. 28 People v Mumford, 183 Mich App 149, 152 ; 455 NW2d 51 (1990) (quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted). 29 It is not at all c

2015See People v Cooper, 309 Mich App 74, 87-88 ; 867 NW2d 452 (2015). -5- A criminal defendant is entitled to a “neutral and detached magistrate.” People v Cheeks, 216 Mich App 470, 480 ; 549 NW2d 584 (1996).

2015See People v Cooper, 309 Mich App 74, 87-88 ; 867 NW2d 452 (2015). -5- A criminal defendant is entitled to a “neutral and detached magistrate.” People v Cheeks, 216 Mich App 470, 480 ; 549 NW2d 584 (1996).

2015People v Ackerman, 257 Mich App 434, 448 ; 669 NW2d 818 (2003).

2015People v Ackerman, 257 Mich App 434, 448 ; 669 NW2d 818 (2003).

1982Duncan, supra. Defendant also argues that the prosecutor committed error in his closing argument by commenting on defendant’s failure to produce certain corroborating evidence.

1977In People v Drew, 67 Mich App 295, 302-304 ; 240 NW2d 776 (1976), the trial court erroneously ruled, over defense objection, that the prosecutor could inquire not only into defendant's prior convictions, but also into the total number of years he had spent in prison.

1977In People v Drew, 67 Mich App 295, 302-304 ; 240 NW2d 776 (1976), the trial court erroneously ruled, over defense objection, that the prosecutor could inquire not only into defendant's prior convictions, but also into the total number of years he had spent in prison.

1976Defendant claims the prosecutor committed error by questioning him concerning a past misdemeanor conviction in violation of the rule enunciated in People v Renno, 392 Mich 45 ; 219 NW2d 422 (1974).

1976Defendant claims the prosecutor committed error by questioning him concerning a past misdemeanor conviction in violation of the rule enunciated in People v Renno, 392 Mich 45 ; 219 NW2d 422 (1974).