158296, 158298 - People v Terrance Furline, People v Alvin Jenkins
Attorney Information
|
The People of the State
of Michigan,
|
|
Melissa Hoover
|
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
|
|
|
v
|
(Appeal from Ct of
Appeals)
|
|
|
|
(Saginaw – Borchard, J.)
|
|
|
Terrance Anthony Furline,
|
|
Ronald Ambrose
|
|
|
Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
|
|
____________________________________
The People of the State of Michigan, |
|
Melissa Hoover |
|
Plaintiff-Appellant, |
|
v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Saginaw – Borchard, J.) |
|
Alvin Bernard Jenkins, Sr., |
|
Jonathan Simon |
|
Defendant-Appellee. |
Order Link
Order Link 2
Order Link 3
Opinions Link
Opinions Link 2
Opinions Link 3
Summary
Page Content
Defendants Terrance Furline
and Alvin Jenkins, Sr., set fire to a Flint home-improvement store as part of a
scheme to distract employees while they stole high-priced merchandise. They returned at least one item from the
Flint store to another home-improvement store in exchange for a gift card,
which they intended to sell for cash. The
next day, they attempted the same fire/theft scheme at a Saginaw
home-improvement store. A store employee
prevented the theft, and defendants were eventually arrested and charged with multiple
felonies. Before trial, defendant
Furline moved to sever his trial from that of codefendant Jenkins, arguing that
Jenkins had given a statement to police identifying him (Furline) as the one
who set the fire at the Saginaw store.
Jenkins orally joined the motion.
Furline argued that their defenses were mutually exclusive, and thus,
severance was mandatory under People v
Hana, 447 Mich 325 (1994). The trial
court disagreed and denied the motion.
Following a joint trial before a single jury, both defendants were
convicted as charged. The Court of
Appeals vacated defendants’ convictions and sentences, reasoning that the trial
court abused its discretion by denying Furline’s motion to sever. The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument
on defendants’ applications for leave to appeal to address whether the Court of
Appeals clearly erred in its application of the principles of People v Hana, 447 Mich 325 (1994), to
the defendants’ motions for separate trials.