People of Michigan v. Amanda Jenise Hardy

• Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
• Decided: November 26, 2019
• Docket: 339236
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED November 26, 2019 Plaintiff-Appellee,

v No. 339236 Wayne Circuit Court AMANDA JENISE HARDY, LC No. 17-002020-01-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: O’BRIEN, P.J., and BECKERING and LETICA, JJ.

LETICA, J. (concurring).

I concur in the result only. Although I disagree that this issue was preserved below, review under the plain-error standard does not change the outcome. Despite the prosecutor’s knowledge of defense counsel’s earlier alleged statement1 and her skepticism of defendant’s adamant denial, injecting prosecutorial testimony was improper and warrants reversal in this case. People v Christensen, 64 Mich App 23, 28-29; 235 NW2d 50 (1975) (a prosecutor engages in misconduct when the prosecutor injects personal knowledge into the proceedings through testimonial questioning); People v Brocato, 17 Mich App 277, 295; 169 NW2d 483 (1969) (same).

/s/ Anica Letica

1 Defense counsel’s redirect questioning indicates that defendant never consulted with counsel for such a purpose, but defense counsel’s appellate brief now appears to admit the statement was made, albeit during plea negotiations.

-1-