Investigatory stop; People v Jenkins; Lost or missing evidence; People v Anstey; Prosecutorial misconduct; People v Bahoda; Admission of a prior conviction; People v Allen; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Competency

The court held that the investigatory stop was lawful and the absence of a recording did not violate due process, but improper admission of defendant’s prior conviction and parole status required reversal and a new trial. On appeal, the court held that a seizure occurred when the officer told defendant they were “not done talking” and noted that a stop is valid when based on “commonsense judgments and reasonable inferences.” The court found the officers had articulable suspicion given the call about suspicious behavior, defendant’s conduct, and the LEIN check. The court also held there was no Brady violation because no recording existed, finding due process is not violated when officers fail “to develop evidence in the first instance.” Further, his due process rights were not violated on the basis he was not competent to stand trial. “A reasonable and principled judge in the trial court’s position could have justifiably rejected the conclusion that defendant was not competent to stand trial.” The court also found no ineffective assistance for not requesting an adverse inference instruction because there was no showing of bad faith related to the failure to make a recording. However, it held that the prosecution committed misconduct by eliciting defendant’s prior resisting conviction and parole status without a proper non-propensity purpose, noting such evidence risks the jury deciding guilt on the basis of “general bad character.” And the error was not harmless because no limiting instruction was given. Reversed and remanded.