154565 - People v Lavere Douglas-Le Bryant
Attorney Information
|
The
People of the State of Michigan,
|
|
Deborah K. Blair
|
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellant,
|
|
|
v
|
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
|
|
|
|
(Wayne – Lillard, Q.)
|
|
|
Lavere Douglas-Le Bryant,
|
|
Jonathan B.D. Simon
|
|
|
Defendant-Appellee.
|
|
Order Link
Order Link 2
Order Link 3
Opinions Link
Opinions Link 2
Opinions Link 3
Summary
Page Content
A jury convicted
defendant of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder and other offenses.
The convictions arose from the robbery of a Family Dollar store and the
shooting deaths of two store employees, Brenna Machus and Joseph Orlando.
Defendant had been fired from his employment with Family Dollar approximately
two months before the murders. At trial, pursuant to MRE 404(b), the
prosecution presented the testimony of twelve current and former employees of
Family Dollar regarding acts of sexual harassment committed by defendant. The
prosecution also presented evidence that defendant was a convicted sex offender
and that he had failed to register as a sex offender. In addition, three police
officers testified that they identified defendant in a surveillance video.
Defendant testified, denying that he was fired because of sexual harassment,
and denying that he committed the murders. The Court of Appeals, in an
unpublished opinion, vacated defendant’s convictions and remanded for a new
trial, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the
“other acts” evidence because its probative value was substantially outweighed
by unfair prejudice, MRE 403. The Court of Appeals further held that the trial
court erred in allowing the lay opinion testimony of three police officers, but
it did not grant a new trial on that basis. The Supreme Court has directed oral
argument on the prosecutor’s application for leave to appeal to address: (1)
whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting “other acts”
evidence; (2) if so, whether the error was harmless; and (3) whether the
testimony of three police officers invaded the province of the jury when they
testified about their observations in viewing the video evidence.