PEOPLE OF MI V ROBERT JAMES STEPHENS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
August 31, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 241565
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2001-176314-FH
ROBERT JAMES STEPHENS,
Defendant-Appellant.
ON REMAND
Before: Fort Hood, P.J., and Murphy and Neff, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
This case is before us on remand from our Supreme Court for consideration of the
admission of the statement given by defendant’s wife in light of Crawford v Washington, 541 US
___; 124 S Ct 1354; 158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004). We continue to affirm defendant’s conviction and
sentence.
In Crawford, the United States Supreme Court concluded that the admission of
testimonial statements by a witness is precluded where the witness did not testify at trial.
However, admission may occur where the witness was unavailable to testify at trial, and the
defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Id. at 1365. In the present case,
the statement by defendant’s wife was testimonial because it occurred during a police
interrogation. She was unavailable to testify at trial based on her assertion of spousal privilege,
and there was no prior opportunity for cross-examination by the defense. Consequently, under
the rule established in Crawford, the statement by defendant’s wife was erroneously admitted in
violation of the Confrontation Clause.1
However, violations of the Confrontation Clause are reviewed in light of plain, outcomedeterminative error or harmless beyond a reasonable doubt standard. See People v McPherson,
___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 242767, issued July 20, 2004), slip op p 6 n 10;
People v Geno, 261 Mich App 624, 630; ___ NW2d ___ (2004); People v Spinks, 206 Mich App
488, 493; 522 NW2d 875 (1994).2 The defendant’s own statement or confession may be
1
US Const Am VI; Const 1963, Art 1, § 20.
2
The Crawford Court did not reach the issue of whether any error was harmless because the
state did not raise the issue. Id. at 1359 n 1.
-1-
examined on appeal when determining whether a Confrontation Clause violation was harmless.
See People v Etheridge, 196 Mich App 43, 47; 492 NW2d 490 (1992).
In the present case, we conclude that the admission of any confession by defendant’s
wife, albeit error, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. A resident in the subdivision
observed, during daylight hours, the theft of the equipment from the garage. Although he could
not identify the faces of the thieves, he testified that he was “absolutely positive” that both a man
and a woman were observed leaving the garage holding lawn equipment. This observation
compelled the resident to follow the vehicle as it sped away from the garage, record the license
plate number of the vehicle, and contact authorities and the homeowner. Defendant, a repeat
offender, acknowledged his presence in the vehicle with his wife. He testified that the couple
was heroin users trying to raise money to support their habits. Defendant testified that the
neighborhood was “rich,” and they were combing the area for “aluminum scrap” to sell.
However, defendant acknowledged that there was little “trash” available to scour for aluminum
scrap because it was not the date established for trash collection. Defendant acknowledged the
theft of equipment from a garage, but testified that his wife alone made the decision to steal, and
she took the keys from the car when he threatened to leave. Defendant also presented a letter
from his wife in which she admitted sole responsibility for the crime. In light of defendant’s
acknowledged presence at the location of the theft, Etheridge, supra, and the impartial witness’
absolute certainty regarding defendant’s participation in the crime, we conclude that any
erroneous admission was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. McPherson, supra; Geno, supra;
Spinks, supra.
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
/s/ Janet T. Neff
-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.
