|
No. 134473
| People of the State of Michigan, |
|
B. Eric Restuccia |
Plaintiff-Appellant, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Van Buren - Buhl, W.) |
|
|
| Junior Fred Blackston, |
|
Patrick K. Ehlmann |
| Defendant-Appellee. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellant's Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Plaintiff-Appellant's Supplemental Brief>>
Defendant-Appellee's Brief in Opposition to Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellee's Pro Per Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellee's Supplemental Brief>>
Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
Junior Fred Blackston was convicted of first-degree murder in 2001 for a 1998 killing. For reasons unrelated to his appeals, he received a new trial in 2002. Following the first trial, two important witnesses – an accomplice who was given immunity in exchange for his testimony, and Blackston’s former girlfriend and mother of his children – gave written statements recanting their testimony from the first trial. In the second trial, both witnesses were found to be “unavailable” due to unwillingness to testify and alleged memory problems, and their testimony from the first trial was admitted into evidence. But the court found that the witnesses’ written statements were inadmissible and could not be used to impeach their testimony from the first trial. The 2002 trial resulted in Blackston again being convicted of first-degree murder. He sought a new trial, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to admit the written statements under Michigan Rule of Evidence 806. MRE 806 provides that a statement’s credibility can be attacked or supported “by any evidence which would be admissible for those purposes if declarant had testified as a witness.” In 2005, the Court of Appeals agreed with Blackston and reversed the trial court, remanding the case to the trial court for another new trial. The prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Court, which vacated the Court of Appeals judgment and remanded the case to that court for reconsideration of “the issue whether the trial court’s error, if any, in excluding the statements in question was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” On remand, the Court of Appeals concluded in an unpublished opinion that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court said it could not “say with confidence that defendant would have been convicted of first-degree murder if the court had let in the impeaching evidence, as it was obliged to do.” The appeals court again reversed and remanded for a new trial. The prosecutor appeals.
Top of Page
|
