People of Michigan v. Arndola Charles Lewis

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 3, 2019
Docket342461
StatusUnpublished

This text of People of Michigan v. Arndola Charles Lewis (People of Michigan v. Arndola Charles Lewis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People of Michigan v. Arndola Charles Lewis, (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).

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PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED December 3, 2019 Plaintiff-Appellee,

v No. 342461 Wayne Circuit Court ARNDOLA CHARLES LEWIS, LC No. 17-001662-01-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CAMERON, P.J., and CAVANAGH and SHAPIRO, JJ.

SHAPIRO, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I dissent from the majority only as to the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. The autopsy report and the testimony of Dr. Schmidt provided the primary proof rebutting the claim of self-defense. These were inadmissible pursuant to the Confrontation Clause absent testimony from the medical examiner who conducted the autopsy. See Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36; 124 S Ct 1354; 158 L Ed2 d 177 (2004); People v Lewis, 490 Mich 921 (2011). Despite their inadmissibility, defense counsel failed to object. My colleagues suggest a strategic basis for the lack of objection but we have no way of knowing at this point whether counsel’s decision actually rested on such strategy. Moreover, the suggested strategic basis carries little weight in comparison to the possibility of excluding the autopsy and testimony altogether. I would therefore remand to the trial court for a Ginther1 hearing in order to determine what, if any, strategy actually lay behind the decision not to object and whether the prosecution had means to introduce this evidence without violating the Confrontation Clause. In all other respects, I concur.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro

1 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436; 212 NW2d 922 (1973).

-1-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Crawford v. Washington
541 U.S. 36 (Supreme Court, 2004)
People v. Ginther
212 N.W.2d 922 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
People of Michigan v. Arndola Charles Lewis, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-of-michigan-v-arndola-charles-lewis-michctapp-2019.