People v. Cabrera

• Decision Date: 10 March 2022
• Docket Number: 352319
• Parties: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUAN SANDRO CABRERA, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JUAN SANDRO CABRERA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 352319

Court of Appeals of Michigan

March 10, 2022

UNPUBLISHED

Ottawa Circuit Court; LC No. 19-043047-FC

Before: Riordan, P.J., and K. F. Kelly and Swartzle, JJ.

PER CURIAM

Defendant Juan Sandro Cabrera appeals by right his jury convictions of first-degree murder, committing a felony that was motivated by membership or association with a gang (gang motivated felony), and carrying or possessing a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm). Finding no errors warranting reversal, we affirm.

I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant was convicted after testimony and evidence demonstrated that he shot and killed the victim, Troy Wells, Jr., at the Hampton Inn Hotel ("Hampton") in Holland Township, Michigan, just after midnight on February 16, 2019. Evidence at trial suggested defendant was a member of a gang-the Holland branch of the Latin Kings-and he may have shot Wells under the belief that Wells was a member of a rival gang, the Gangster Disciples.

On the night of the shooting, defendant went to Room 230 at the Hampton with his friends, JDP^[1] and Jose Luis Garcia, III. The group went to the hotel to celebrate Garcia's birthday and brought two semi-automatic rifles with them-an AR-15 rifle and a POF-USA P-15 multicaliber rifle-and about 100 rounds of ammunition. Also present with the three during some portions of the evening were Megyn Hanrahan and Skylar Hittle.

1

Just before midnight, Wells and his sister, Jakara Hunter, arrived at the Hampton to visit another gathering at the hotel. When Wells and Hunter arrived, Wells did not immediately go into the party with Hunter. Instead, he walked down the hallway past Room 230 around the same time Hittle and JDP were leaving the room. Although JDP and Hittle did not at first notice Wells, JDP turned toward Wells and then walked up to him in the hallway just outside Room 230. Wells and JDP argued briefly and, when the door to Room 230 opened, JDP stated, "Look at this G f--k n----r," and pointed at Wells. Defendant subsequently stepped into the doorway, took aim at Wells with the AR-15, and fired at least 10 shots.^[2] Defendant, Garcia, JDP, Hittle, and Hanrahan fled the hotel within minutes of the shooting, leaving behind the rifles and abandoning other evidence in a trash can.

At trial, Hanrahan, Garcia, and JDP identified defendant as the shooter. Defendant's attorney avoided discussing the video evidence or the testimony by the witnesses who were in the hallway; instead, defendant's defense centered on the assertion that Hanrahan, Garcia, and JDP were lying when they identified defendant as the shooter. The jury rejected that defense and convicted defendant as described. Defendant subsequently moved for a new trial, and the trial court held an evidentiary hearing to examine the adequacy of defense counsel's representation and consider a crime scene reconstruction video that defendant's appellate counsel prepared. After concluding the hearing, the trial court rejected each of defendant's claims of error and denied the motion. This appeal followed.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

This Court reviews de novo the question of whether the trial court "properly interpreted and applied the rules of evidence." People v McFarlane, 325 Mich.App. 507, 517; 926 N.W.2d 339 (2018). This Court, however, reviews a trial court's decision to admit or reject evidence for an abuse of discretion. People v Brown, 326 Mich.App. 185, 195; 926 N.W.2d 879 (2018). This Court also reviews for an abuse of discretion a trial court's decision on a motion for a new trial. People v Rao, 491 Mich. 271, 279; 815 N.W.2d 105 (2012). A trial court abuses its discretion when it selects an outcome that falls outside the range of principled outcomes. Id.

In addition, "[t]his Court reviews a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence by examining the 'record evidence de novo in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were

2

proved beyond a reasonable doubt.'" People v Clark, 330 Mich.App. 392, 436; 948 N.W.2d 604 (2019), quoting People v Roper, 286 Mich.App. 77, 83; 777 N.W.2d 483 (2009).

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, defendant must first show that (1) his trial counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under the prevailing professional norms, and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's error, the result of the proceedings would have been different." People v Uphaus, 278 Mich.App. 174, 185; 748 N.W.2d 899 (2008). "Effective assistance of counsel is presumed and defendant bears the burden of proving otherwise." People v Petri, 279 Mich.App. 407, 410; 760 N.W.2d 882 (2008).

III. IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY

Defendant first argues that it was error to allow Detective Tamminga to identify the persons who appeared in the videos taken from the hotel. He maintains that defense counsel should have objected and that his failure to do so amounted to ineffective assistance. He further argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a new trial premised on this error.^[3]

A lay witness may not testify about a matter unless he or she has personal knowledge of it. See MRE 602. However, a lay witness may testify as to his or her opinion or inferences if the opinion or inference were "(a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness's testimony or the determination of a fact in issue." MRE 701.

On appeal, defendant asserts that a lay witness may never offer an opinion concerning the identity of a person who appears in a video or an image. That, however, is an overstatement of the law. A lay witness improperly invades the province of the jury if the witness offers an opinion or interpretation on a fact at issue when the witness is in no better position than the jury to evaluate the evidence and decide the fact at issue. See People v Perkins, 314 Mich.App. 140, 161-162; 885 N.W.2d 900 (2016), superseded in part on other grounds sub nom People v Hyatt, 316 Mich.App. 368; 891 N.W.2d 549 (2016). The same is true for the interpretation of video evidence; a lay witness cannot offer an opinion or interpret the video evidence when the lay witness is in no better position than the jury to evaluate the evidence. People v Fomby, 300 Mich.App. 46, 52-53; 831 N.W.2d 887 (2013). However, when the lay witness has some special knowledge that gives the witness a better ability to interpret the evidence, the witness's testimony is admissible if it is helpful to a clear understanding of the witness's testimony or it is helpful to the determination of a fact at issue. See id. at 53; MRE 701.

The prosecutor submitted into evidence the footage from seven cameras from the Hampton and submitted a timeline that Detective Tamminga prepared during his review of the video evidence. Detective Tamminga estimated that he "probably" viewed the video recordings 50

3

times. He also informed the jury that he created the time line from his review. Detective Tamminga told the jury about important details related to the video system such as the frame rate for the videos and the information collected by the camera system and the placement and operation of the cameras. Detective Tamminga's testimony about the video system was proper lay testimony because it concerned information that he collected about the system from personal knowledge or inferences that he rationally drew from his perceptions. See MRE 602; MRE 701.

Detective Tamminga's testimony also demonstrated that he had special insight into the video evidence that permitted him to offer opinions about the persons depicted in the videos and images. See Fomby, 300 Mich.App. at 52 (noting that a lay witness may offer an opinion about identification when the record showed that the lay witness was more likely to correctly identify the person than the jury). For example, it was evident that Detective Tamminga reviewed the Hampton's records and investigated who stayed in the rooms in the vicinity of the room where the shooting occurred. Detective Tamminga also had firsthand knowledge of the initial investigation and persons involved, which enabled him to express an opinion about who appeared in the video images at various points. On the basis of his experience with the video system, his investigation into the hotel records, and his personal experience interacting with the individuals depicted in the videos, Detective Tamminga had a better ability to identify the persons depicted, so he could properly offer an opinion about the identity of those persons. See Fomby, 300 Mich.App. at 52. He could also properly identify details depicted in the images, such as details about the clothing worn by persons depicted in the videos-because his extensive review of the video evidence made it more likely that he would notice those details. Id. at 53.

Detective Tamminga did not express an improper opinion on defendant's guilt. See id. at 52. The fact that Detective Tamminga's testimony implicated an ultimate issue also did not render his testimony improper. See MRE 704 ("Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact."). Detective Tamminga's testimony did not improperly invade the jury's function as the sole determiner of the facts; the jury was free to reject his opinions. See McFarlane, 325 Mich.App. at 523 ("[T]he jury is free to reject [the witness's] opinion on the basis of the evidence adduced at trial, including a contrary opinion by another expert."). Instead, he offered lay testimony derived from his investigation into the events at issue,...