PEOPLE OF MI V ALFONSO MACIAS JR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 197792
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 94-131544
ALFONSO MACIAS, JR.,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Reilly, P.J., and Michael J. Kelly and Cavanagh, JJ.
MICHAEL J. KELLY, (dissent)
I respectfully dissent. I would find the prosecutor’s reference in closing argument emphasizing
that the alibi witness failed to come forward to the police before trial, inferring that her behavior was not
consistent with truth or common sense and therefore she was not to be believed, is error requiring
reversal. I would apply the standard enunciated in Chapman v California, 386 US 18, 24; 84 S Ct
824; 17 L Ed 2d 705 (1967) and find that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in
accordance with the federal standard enunciated in Chapman, for three reasons.
First, there is no requirement that an alibi witness seek out the prosecutor or the police in order
to give his or her information. MCL 768.21; MSA 28.1044 does not establish any duty on the part of
the alibi witness.
Second, the facts of this case are distinguishable from People v Phillips, 217 Mich App 489;
___ NW2d ___ (1996). Phillips held that the prosecution is under no obligation to lay a special
foundation before attempting to impeach an alibi witness during cross-examination concerning the failure
of the witness to inform the police or the prosecution of the alibi witness before trial. In the instant case,
Brenda Ruelas was never cross-examined about her failure to bring her alibi information to the attention
of the authorities. Instead, the prosecutor avoided such cross-examination and supplied her own
prosecutor’s version of that fatal lapse on the part of the alibi witness at closing arguments where she
created the inference she wished the jury to believe; basically, that since Ruelas did not come forward in
advance of trial she did not properly provide defendant an alibi and her testimony was untrustworthy.
-1
Third, any failure to obtain Ruelas’ story in advance of trial was the failure of the prosecution as
Ruleas was listed as an alibi witness in defendant’s notice of alibi, dated April 21, 1994, two months
before trial, and the prosecutor’s statement that she did not come forth until trial was irrelevant, false or
misleading at best.
I would reverse.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
