Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v JERAH D. ARNOLD, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED December 20, 2005

No. 257027 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 03-001252-01

Before: Whitbeck, C.J., and Talbot and Murray, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder, MCL 750.317, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b. He was sentenced to a term of 22-1/2 to 50 years' imprisonment for the murder conviction, and a consecutive twoyear term for the felony-firearm conviction. He appeals as of right. We affirm. Defendant's convictions arise from the fatal shooting of Ramad "Pig" Taylor ("decedent") in an apartment building in Detroit on November 21, 2001. Tasha Boykin and Fiuleaters Roberson testified that they saw defendant shoot Taylor with an automatic rifle. Defendant's first two trials, held in April 2003 and December 2003, ended in mistrials because the juries failed to reach a verdict. Defendant argues that the trial court violated his constitutional right to confront witnesses by restricting his cross-examination of Roberson and Boykin. Boykin and Roberson initially failed to identify defendant as the shooter. Roberson explained that he left Michigan for West Virginia soon after the shooting, fearing that defendant would retaliate if he cooperated with the prosecutor. He was returned to Michigan pursuant to a material witness detainer after he was incarcerated in West Virginia for an unrelated offense. Roberson testified at defendant's first trial that he could not identify defendant as the shooter because the shooter wore a hood over his face. At defendant's second and third trials, Roberson recanted his previous testimony and identified defendant. He explained that he had lied about the identification because he feared that his fellow inmates would target him as a snitch. Defense counsel cross-examined Roberson extensively about his belated decision to cooperate with the prosecutor and identify defendant. Counsel insinuated that Roberson went to West Virginia because he was involved in the decedent's homicide, and that the prosecutor offered him leniency in exchange for his testimony against defendant. He also insinuated that -1-


Roberson received favorable treatment in the West Virginia case after he agreed to cooperate with the prosecutor in defendant's case. On redirect examination, Roberson denied receiving any leniency in the West Virginia case in exchange for his testimony against defendant. On recross-examination, defense counsel asked Roberson several times whether he had been charged with any offense in relation to the decedent's homicide. Roberson replied that he had not. The trial court then precluded counsel from asking Roberson any more questions about charges against him. Defendant moved for a mistrial, arguing that the trial court impermissibly restricted his cross-examination regarding favorable treatment for Roberson, and Roberson's prior testimony that the shooter's face was obscured by a hood. The trial court denied the motion. Boykin identified the wrong person at defendant's lineup. A few weeks later, she admitted to the police that she recognized defendant at the lineup, but deliberately picked the wrong person because she was afraid of becoming involved. The police held a second lineup, and Boykin identified defendant. The also identified him at each of his trials. Boykin testified that Pastor Jenkins advised her to come forward with the truth. Boykin testified at defendant's first trial that Pastor Jenkins was affiliated with the First Baptist Church, but she did not name the church at defendant's third trial. Two days after Boykin testified at defendant's third trial, defense counsel requested the trial court to recall her for further cross-examination. Counsel explained that he recently learned that either Pastor Jenkins or the church did not really exist, and he wanted to impeach Boykin with this information. The trial court denied the request, because defendant had already had ample opportunity to cross-examine Boykin. Defendant argues that the trial court's restrictions on defense counsel's cross-examination of Roberson and Boykin violated his constitutional right to confront witnesses. A defendant has a constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him through cross-examination. US Const, Am VI; Const 1963, art 1,

Download PEOPLE OF MI V JERAH D ARNOLD.pdf

Michigan Law