Alleged Brady v Maryland violation; People v Chenault; Adequate investigation; Distinction between failing to disclose evidence & failing to develop it; People v Anstey; Prosecutorial misconduct; People v Dobek; Lay witness opinion testimony; MRE 701

Holding that defendant failed to show a Brady violation and that the prosecutor did not elicit inadmissible legal conclusions from a police witness, the court affirmed defendant’s convictions. He was convicted of first-degree home invasion, AWIGBH, and felonious assault. He first argued that the prosecution violated Brady because law enforcement failed to conduct an adequate investigation, which might have turned up exonerating evidence. The court noted that he simply speculated, without record support, that certain investigative steps “could have produced exculpatory evidence. He” did not show “that certain evidence actually existed,” or explain how it “could have affected the outcome of his trial or sentencing. Furthermore, Brady only addresses the suppression of evidence that is already in the government’s control.” As the Michigan Supreme Court stated in Anstey, for “due process purposes, there is a crucial distinction between failing to disclose evidence that has been developed and failing to develop evidence in the first instance.” In the absence of “any proof that the government actually possessed material exculpatory or impeaching evidence that the prosecution failed to disclose,” the Brady claim failed. The court also concluded that “the prosecutor did not elicit inadmissible legal conclusions from” a deputy (E). Pursuant to “MRE 701, [E’s] testimony that he did not have the information required to obtain a search warrant was rationally based on his experience in law enforcement and the results of his investigation. [It] was also helpful [to] the determination of a fact at issue: the adequacy of the investigation.” A codefendant’s attorney had elicited testimony that E “never obtained any search warrants in this case, which might imply poor investigative work and the possibility that the police overlooked important evidence. The prosecutor’s questioning elicited testimony that tended to dispel that theory.” Further, the fact that E’s “testimony included some incidental statements about his understanding of the law did not render [it] inadmissible.”