Davenport standard in Michigan

1992Under these circumstances and because the issue is not properly raised, we see no need to consider the so-called Davenport standard in this opinion. [1] People v Hampton, 407 Mich 354 ; 285 NW2d 284 (1979). [2] Compare, e.g., People v Davenport, 39 Mich App 252 ; 197 NW2d 521 (1972), People v Simpson, 104 Mich App 731 ; 305 NW2d 249 (1980), and People v Lewis, 178 Mich App 464 ; 444 NW2d 194 (1989), with People v Mumford, 60 Mich App 279 ; 230 NW2d 395 (1975), People v Edgar, 75 Mich App 467 ; 255 NW2d 648 (1977), and People v Carson, 189 Mich App 268 ; 471 NW2d 655 (1991).

1992Under these circumstances and because the issue is not properly raised, we see no need to consider the so-called Davenport standard in this opinion. [1] People v Hampton, 407 Mich 354 ; 285 NW2d 284 (1979). [2] Compare, e.g., People v Davenport, 39 Mich App 252 ; 197 NW2d 521 (1972), People v Simpson, 104 Mich App 731 ; 305 NW2d 249 (1980), and People v Lewis, 178 Mich App 464 ; 444 NW2d 194 (1989), with People v Mumford, 60 Mich App 279 ; 230 NW2d 395 (1975), People v Edgar, 75 Mich App 467 ; 255 NW2d 648 (1977), and People v Carson, 189 Mich App 268 ; 471 NW2d 655 (1991).

1992Under these circumstances and because the issue is not properly raised, we see no need to consider the so-called Davenport standard in this opinion. [1] People v Hampton, 407 Mich 354 ; 285 NW2d 284 (1979). [2] Compare, e.g., People v Davenport, 39 Mich App 252 ; 197 NW2d 521 (1972), People v Simpson, 104 Mich App 731 ; 305 NW2d 249 (1980), and People v Lewis, 178 Mich App 464 ; 444 NW2d 194 (1989), with People v Mumford, 60 Mich App 279 ; 230 NW2d 395 (1975), People v Edgar, 75 Mich App 467 ; 255 NW2d 648 (1977), and People v Carson, 189 Mich App 268 ; 471 NW2d 655 (1991).

1992Under these circumstances and because the issue is not properly raised, we see no need to consider the so-called Davenport standard in this opinion. [1] People v Hampton, 407 Mich 354 ; 285 NW2d 284 (1979). [2] Compare, e.g., People v Davenport, 39 Mich App 252 ; 197 NW2d 521 (1972), People v Simpson, 104 Mich App 731 ; 305 NW2d 249 (1980), and People v Lewis, 178 Mich App 464 ; 444 NW2d 194 (1989), with People v Mumford, 60 Mich App 279 ; 230 NW2d 395 (1975), People v Edgar, 75 Mich App 467 ; 255 NW2d 648 (1977), and People v Carson, 189 Mich App 268 ; 471 NW2d 655 (1991).

2009The prosecuting attorney’s office employed only two attorneys, McLennan and Steiger, and McLennan prosecuted Davenport in the trial court. *194 In our prior opinion, People v Davenport, 280 Mich App 464, 470-471 ; 760 NW2d 743 (2008), we addressed Davenport’s claim that his trial counsel, Janet Frederick-Wilson, provided ineffective assistance 2 for failing to raise the issue of Steiger’s move to the prosecutor’s office: We affirm the trial court’s ruling that defense counsel’s failure to raise this matter constitutes an objectively unreasonable error.

2009The prosecuting attorney’s office employed only two attorneys, McLennan and Steiger, and McLennan prosecuted Davenport in the trial court. *194 In our prior opinion, People v Davenport, 280 Mich App 464, 470-471 ; 760 NW2d 743 (2008), we addressed Davenport’s claim that his trial counsel, Janet Frederick-Wilson, provided ineffective assistance 2 for failing to raise the issue of Steiger’s move to the prosecutor’s office: We affirm the trial court’s ruling that defense counsel’s failure to raise this matter constitutes an objectively unreasonable error.

1992Under these circumstances and because the issue is not properly raised, we see no need to consider the so-called Davenport standard in this opinion. [1] People v Hampton, 407 Mich 354 ; 285 NW2d 284 (1979). [2] Compare, e.g., People v Davenport, 39 Mich App 252 ; 197 NW2d 521 (1972), People v Simpson, 104 Mich App 731 ; 305 NW2d 249 (1980), and People v Lewis, 178 Mich App 464 ; 444 NW2d 194 (1989), with People v Mumford, 60 Mich App 279 ; 230 NW2d 395 (1975), People v Edgar, 75 Mich App 467 ; 255 NW2d 648 (1977), and People v Carson, 189 Mich App 268 ; 471 NW2d 655 (1991).

1992Under these circumstances and because the issue is not properly raised, we see no need to consider the so-called Davenport standard in this opinion. [1] People v Hampton, 407 Mich 354 ; 285 NW2d 284 (1979). [2] Compare, e.g., People v Davenport, 39 Mich App 252 ; 197 NW2d 521 (1972), People v Simpson, 104 Mich App 731 ; 305 NW2d 249 (1980), and People v Lewis, 178 Mich App 464 ; 444 NW2d 194 (1989), with People v Mumford, 60 Mich App 279 ; 230 NW2d 395 (1975), People v Edgar, 75 Mich App 467 ; 255 NW2d 648 (1977), and People v Carson, 189 Mich App 268 ; 471 NW2d 655 (1991).

1992Under these circumstances and because the issue is not properly raised, we see no need to consider the so-called Davenport standard in this opinion. [1] People v Hampton, 407 Mich 354 ; 285 NW2d 284 (1979). [2] Compare, e.g., People v Davenport, 39 Mich App 252 ; 197 NW2d 521 (1972), People v Simpson, 104 Mich App 731 ; 305 NW2d 249 (1980), and People v Lewis, 178 Mich App 464 ; 444 NW2d 194 (1989), with People v Mumford, 60 Mich App 279 ; 230 NW2d 395 (1975), People v Edgar, 75 Mich App 467 ; 255 NW2d 648 (1977), and People v Carson, 189 Mich App 268 ; 471 NW2d 655 (1991).

1992Under these circumstances and because the issue is not properly raised, we see no need to consider the so-called Davenport standard in this opinion. [1] People v Hampton, 407 Mich 354 ; 285 NW2d 284 (1979). [2] Compare, e.g., People v Davenport, 39 Mich App 252 ; 197 NW2d 521 (1972), People v Simpson, 104 Mich App 731 ; 305 NW2d 249 (1980), and People v Lewis, 178 Mich App 464 ; 444 NW2d 194 (1989), with People v Mumford, 60 Mich App 279 ; 230 NW2d 395 (1975), People v Edgar, 75 Mich App 467 ; 255 NW2d 648 (1977), and People v Carson, 189 Mich App 268 ; 471 NW2d 655 (1991).

1992See also People v Hellenthal, 186 Mich App 484 ; 465 NW2d 329 (1990) (the Court held that it is permissible to infer that the defendant was in possession of cocaine and marijuana from the presence of drugs in the defendant's house, a urinalysis test showing a positive result for marijuana, and the defendant's concession that he was aware of drug paraphernalia in his house); People v Spann, 3 Mich App 444 ; 142 NW2d 887 (1966) (the Court concluded there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for conspiracy and larceny despite evidence that the defendant, Adams, was in the room from w

1992See also People v Hellenthal, 186 Mich App 484 ; 465 NW2d 329 (1990) (the Court held that it is permissible to infer that the defendant was in possession of cocaine and marijuana from the presence of drugs in the defendant's house, a urinalysis test showing a positive result for marijuana, and the defendant's concession that he was aware of drug paraphernalia in his house); People v Spann, 3 Mich App 444 ; 142 NW2d 887 (1966) (the Court concluded there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for conspiracy and larceny despite evidence that the defendant, Adams, was in the room from w

1992See also People v Hellenthal, 186 Mich App 484 ; 465 NW2d 329 (1990) (the Court held that it is permissible to infer that the defendant was in possession of cocaine and marijuana from the presence of drugs in the defendant's house, a urinalysis test showing a positive result for marijuana, and the defendant's concession that he was aware of drug paraphernalia in his house); People v Spann, 3 Mich App 444 ; 142 NW2d 887 (1966) (the Court concluded there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for conspiracy and larceny despite evidence that the defendant, Adams, was in the room from w

1992See also People v Hellenthal, 186 Mich App 484 ; 465 NW2d 329 (1990) (the Court held that it is permissible to infer that the defendant was in possession of cocaine and marijuana from the presence of drugs in the defendant's house, a urinalysis test showing a positive result for marijuana, and the defendant's concession that he was aware of drug paraphernalia in his house); People v Spann, 3 Mich App 444 ; 142 NW2d 887 (1966) (the Court concluded there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for conspiracy and larceny despite evidence that the defendant, Adams, was in the room from w

1992See also People v Hellenthal, 186 Mich App 484 ; 465 NW2d 329 (1990) (the Court held that it is permissible to infer that the defendant was in possession of cocaine and marijuana from the presence of drugs in the defendant's house, a urinalysis test showing a positive result for marijuana, and the defendant's concession that he was aware of drug paraphernalia in his house); People v Spann, 3 Mich App 444 ; 142 NW2d 887 (1966) (the Court concluded there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for conspiracy and larceny despite evidence that the defendant, Adams, was in the room from w

1992See also People v Hellenthal, 186 Mich App 484 ; 465 NW2d 329 (1990) (the Court held that it is permissible to infer that the defendant was in possession of cocaine and marijuana from the presence of drugs in the defendant's house, a urinalysis test showing a positive result for marijuana, and the defendant's concession that he was aware of drug paraphernalia in his house); People v Spann, 3 Mich App 444 ; 142 NW2d 887 (1966) (the Court concluded there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for conspiracy and larceny despite evidence that the defendant, Adams, was in the room from w

1992See also People v Hellenthal, 186 Mich App 484 ; 465 NW2d 329 (1990) (the Court held that it is permissible to infer that the defendant was in possession of cocaine and marijuana from the presence of drugs in the defendant's house, a urinalysis test showing a positive result for marijuana, and the defendant's concession that he was aware of drug paraphernalia in his house); People v Spann, 3 Mich App 444 ; 142 NW2d 887 (1966) (the Court concluded there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for conspiracy and larceny despite evidence that the defendant, Adams, was in the room from w

1992See also People v Hellenthal, 186 Mich App 484 ; 465 NW2d 329 (1990) (the Court held that it is permissible to infer that the defendant was in possession of cocaine and marijuana from the presence of drugs in the defendant's house, a urinalysis test showing a positive result for marijuana, and the defendant's concession that he was aware of drug paraphernalia in his house); People v Spann, 3 Mich App 444 ; 142 NW2d 887 (1966) (the Court concluded there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for conspiracy and larceny despite evidence that the defendant, Adams, was in the room from w

1992Under these circumstances and because the issue is not properly raised, we see no need to consider the so-called Davenport standard in this opinion. [1] People v Hampton, 407 Mich 354 ; 285 NW2d 284 (1979). [2] Compare, e.g., People v Davenport, 39 Mich App 252 ; 197 NW2d 521 (1972), People v Simpson, 104 Mich App 731 ; 305 NW2d 249 (1980), and People v Lewis, 178 Mich App 464 ; 444 NW2d 194 (1989), with People v Mumford, 60 Mich App 279 ; 230 NW2d 395 (1975), People v Edgar, 75 Mich App 467 ; 255 NW2d 648 (1977), and People v Carson, 189 Mich App 268 ; 471 NW2d 655 (1991).

1992Under these circumstances and because the issue is not properly raised, we see no need to consider the so-called Davenport standard in this opinion. [1] People v Hampton, 407 Mich 354 ; 285 NW2d 284 (1979). [2] Compare, e.g., People v Davenport, 39 Mich App 252 ; 197 NW2d 521 (1972), People v Simpson, 104 Mich App 731 ; 305 NW2d 249 (1980), and People v Lewis, 178 Mich App 464 ; 444 NW2d 194 (1989), with People v Mumford, 60 Mich App 279 ; 230 NW2d 395 (1975), People v Edgar, 75 Mich App 467 ; 255 NW2d 648 (1977), and People v Carson, 189 Mich App 268 ; 471 NW2d 655 (1991).

1992See also People v Hellenthal, 186 Mich App 484 ; 465 NW2d 329 (1990) (the Court held that it is permissible to infer that the defendant was in possession of cocaine and marijuana from the presence of drugs in the defendant's house, a urinalysis test showing a positive result for marijuana, and the defendant's concession that he was aware of drug paraphernalia in his house); People v Spann, 3 Mich App 444 ; 142 NW2d 887 (1966) (the Court concluded there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for conspiracy and larceny despite evidence that the defendant, Adams, was in the room from w

1992See also People v Hellenthal, 186 Mich App 484 ; 465 NW2d 329 (1990) (the Court held that it is permissible to infer that the defendant was in possession of cocaine and marijuana from the presence of drugs in the defendant's house, a urinalysis test showing a positive result for marijuana, and the defendant's concession that he was aware of drug paraphernalia in his house); People v Spann, 3 Mich App 444 ; 142 NW2d 887 (1966) (the Court concluded there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for conspiracy and larceny despite evidence that the defendant, Adams, was in the room from w

1992See also People v Hellenthal, 186 Mich App 484 ; 465 NW2d 329 (1990) (the Court held that it is permissible to infer that the defendant was in possession of cocaine and marijuana from the presence of drugs in the defendant's house, a urinalysis test showing a positive result for marijuana, and the defendant's concession that he was aware of drug paraphernalia in his house); People v Spann, 3 Mich App 444 ; 142 NW2d 887 (1966) (the Court concluded there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for conspiracy and larceny despite evidence that the defendant, Adams, was in the room from w

1992See also People v Hellenthal, 186 Mich App 484 ; 465 NW2d 329 (1990) (the Court held that it is permissible to infer that the defendant was in possession of cocaine and marijuana from the presence of drugs in the defendant's house, a urinalysis test showing a positive result for marijuana, and the defendant's concession that he was aware of drug paraphernalia in his house); People v Spann, 3 Mich App 444 ; 142 NW2d 887 (1966) (the Court concluded there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for conspiracy and larceny despite evidence that the defendant, Adams, was in the room from w

1992See also People v Hellenthal, 186 Mich App 484 ; 465 NW2d 329 (1990) (the Court held that it is permissible to infer that the defendant was in possession of cocaine and marijuana from the presence of drugs in the defendant's house, a urinalysis test showing a positive result for marijuana, and the defendant's concession that he was aware of drug paraphernalia in his house); People v Spann, 3 Mich App 444 ; 142 NW2d 887 (1966) (the Court concluded there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for conspiracy and larceny despite evidence that the defendant, Adams, was in the room from w

1992See also People v Hellenthal, 186 Mich App 484 ; 465 NW2d 329 (1990) (the Court held that it is permissible to infer that the defendant was in possession of cocaine and marijuana from the presence of drugs in the defendant's house, a urinalysis test showing a positive result for marijuana, and the defendant's concession that he was aware of drug paraphernalia in his house); People v Spann, 3 Mich App 444 ; 142 NW2d 887 (1966) (the Court concluded there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for conspiracy and larceny despite evidence that the defendant, Adams, was in the room from w

1992Under these circumstances and because the issue is not properly raised, we see no need to consider the so-called Davenport standard in this opinion. [1] People v Hampton, 407 Mich 354 ; 285 NW2d 284 (1979). [2] Compare, e.g., People v Davenport, 39 Mich App 252 ; 197 NW2d 521 (1972), People v Simpson, 104 Mich App 731 ; 305 NW2d 249 (1980), and People v Lewis, 178 Mich App 464 ; 444 NW2d 194 (1989), with People v Mumford, 60 Mich App 279 ; 230 NW2d 395 (1975), People v Edgar, 75 Mich App 467 ; 255 NW2d 648 (1977), and People v Carson, 189 Mich App 268 ; 471 NW2d 655 (1991).

1992Under these circumstances and because the issue is not properly raised, we see no need to consider the so-called Davenport standard in this opinion. [1] People v Hampton, 407 Mich 354 ; 285 NW2d 284 (1979). [2] Compare, e.g., People v Davenport, 39 Mich App 252 ; 197 NW2d 521 (1972), People v Simpson, 104 Mich App 731 ; 305 NW2d 249 (1980), and People v Lewis, 178 Mich App 464 ; 444 NW2d 194 (1989), with People v Mumford, 60 Mich App 279 ; 230 NW2d 395 (1975), People v Edgar, 75 Mich App 467 ; 255 NW2d 648 (1977), and People v Carson, 189 Mich App 268 ; 471 NW2d 655 (1991).

1992See also People v Hellenthal, 186 Mich App 484 ; 465 NW2d 329 (1990) (the Court held that it is permissible to infer that the defendant was in possession of cocaine and marijuana from the presence of drugs in the defendant's house, a urinalysis test showing a positive result for marijuana, and the defendant's concession that he was aware of drug paraphernalia in his house); People v Spann, 3 Mich App 444 ; 142 NW2d 887 (1966) (the Court concluded there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for conspiracy and larceny despite evidence that the defendant, Adams, was in the room from w

1992See also People v Hellenthal, 186 Mich App 484 ; 465 NW2d 329 (1990) (the Court held that it is permissible to infer that the defendant was in possession of cocaine and marijuana from the presence of drugs in the defendant's house, a urinalysis test showing a positive result for marijuana, and the defendant's concession that he was aware of drug paraphernalia in his house); People v Spann, 3 Mich App 444 ; 142 NW2d 887 (1966) (the Court concluded there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for conspiracy and larceny despite evidence that the defendant, Adams, was in the room from w

1981Affirmed. 1 See Issue 4, infra. 2 For lists of cases following the Davenport rule and cases following the doctrine in Edgar , see People v Walker, 93 Mich App 189, 194-195 , fns 1 and 2; 285 NW2d 812 (1979), and People v Williams, 94 Mich App 406, 415-416 ; 288 NW2d 638 (1979). 3 In his dissent opposing the introduction of evidence of a gun found two days after the crime, Judge (now Justice) Levin acknowledged that "Where the people’s case is based largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence * * * the probative value of the evidence will generally outweigh the danger of confusing the issues

1981Affirmed. 1 See Issue 4, infra. 2 For lists of cases following the Davenport rule and cases following the doctrine in Edgar , see People v Walker, 93 Mich App 189, 194-195 , fns 1 and 2; 285 NW2d 812 (1979), and People v Williams, 94 Mich App 406, 415-416 ; 288 NW2d 638 (1979). 3 In his dissent opposing the introduction of evidence of a gun found two days after the crime, Judge (now Justice) Levin acknowledged that "Where the people’s case is based largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence * * * the probative value of the evidence will generally outweigh the danger of confusing the issues

1981Affirmed. 1 See Issue 4, infra. 2 For lists of cases following the Davenport rule and cases following the doctrine in Edgar , see People v Walker, 93 Mich App 189, 194-195 , fns 1 and 2; 285 NW2d 812 (1979), and People v Williams, 94 Mich App 406, 415-416 ; 288 NW2d 638 (1979). 3 In his dissent opposing the introduction of evidence of a gun found two days after the crime, Judge (now Justice) Levin acknowledged that "Where the people’s case is based largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence * * * the probative value of the evidence will generally outweigh the danger of confusing the issues

1981Affirmed. 1 See Issue 4, infra. 2 For lists of cases following the Davenport rule and cases following the doctrine in Edgar , see People v Walker, 93 Mich App 189, 194-195 , fns 1 and 2; 285 NW2d 812 (1979), and People v Williams, 94 Mich App 406, 415-416 ; 288 NW2d 638 (1979). 3 In his dissent opposing the introduction of evidence of a gun found two days after the crime, Judge (now Justice) Levin acknowledged that "Where the people’s case is based largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence * * * the probative value of the evidence will generally outweigh the danger of confusing the issues