Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v CHRISTOPHER CLAYTON HAMMOND, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED March 14, 2006

No. 255427 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 03-188316-FC

Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Neff and Owens, JJ. PER CURIAM. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of one count of first-degree home invasion, MCL 750.110a(2), two counts of armed robbery, MCL 750.529, and three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b. The trial court sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of 5 to 20 years' imprisonment for the first-degree home invasion conviction and 10 to 30 years' imprisonment for the armed robbery convictions, to be served consecutive to the mandatory two-year terms for his convictions of felony-firearm. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm. Defendant's convictions arise from the armed robbery of two individuals at a Ferndale home. Several of the people present in the home testified that defendant and two others forced their way into the home at gunpoint, then proceeded to steal a cell phone, a video camera, and a cashbox containing approximately $1,500. On appeal, defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial as a result of misconduct by the prosecutor and erroneous instruction of the jury by the trial court. We disagree. Regarding the conduct of the prosecutor, defendant asserts that he was denied a fair trial by the prosecutor's questioning of him on cross-examination concerning his codefendants' pleas of guilty and nolo contendre to charges stemming from this incident. Because defendant failed to properly preserve this issue by objecting to the prosecutor's questioning at trial, we review this claim of prosecutorial misconduct for plain, outcome-determinative error. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764; 597 NW2d 130 (1999); see also People v Thomas, 260 Mich App 450, 453454; 678 NW2d 631 (2004). Although the conviction of another person involved in a criminal incident is not admissible as substantive evidence at a defendant's separate trial, the mere revelation of the fact

-1-


that a codefendant has pleaded guilty does not necessarily entitle a defendant to reversal of his conviction. See People v Barber, 255 Mich App 288, 297; 659 NW2d 674 (2003). Rather, "`[w]hether (a prosecuting attorney's disclosure during trial that another defendant has pleaded guilty) was prejudicial is a question of fact, and, in the final analysis, each case must be determined on its own particular facts, for there is no legal standard by which the prejudicial qualities of a prosecuting attorney's remarks or conduct can be gauged, and it is only when, in the light of all the circumstances attendant upon a trial, the misconduct complained of can be said to have influenced the jury's verdict and prevented a fair trial, that prejudice results.'" [People v Eldridge, 17 Mich App 306, 317; 169 NW2d 497 (1969), quoting 48 ALR2d 1016,

Download PEOPLE OF MI V CHRISTOPHER CLAYTON HAMMOND.pdf

Michigan Law