PEOPLE OF MI V DWIGHT-STERLING DAVID JAMBOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
v
FOR PUBLICATION
May 2, 2006
9:00 a.m.
No. 259014
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2004-194043-FH
DWIGHT-STERLING DAVID JAMBOR,
Defendant-Appellee/CrossAppellant.
Official Reported Version
Before: Cooper, P.J., and Cavanagh and Fitzgerald, JJ.
FITZGERALD, J.
The prosecution appeals as of right the trial court's order dismissing defendant's criminal
prosecution for breaking and entering a building with intent to commit larceny. The court
dismissed the case after granting defendant's motion to exclude evidence of four white
fingerprint cards, one of which contained defendant's latent fingerprint, on the ground that the
prosecution failed to lay a proper foundation for admission of the white cards. Defendant crossappeals, challenging the denial of his motion to exclude evidence of three black fingerprint
cards, none of which contained his latent fingerprints. We affirm.
I. Basic Facts
Defendant was charged with breaking and entering a building with intent to commit
larceny, MCL 750.110. The charge arose from an incident at the Bloomfield Surf Club in
Bloomfield Township. Bloomfield Township Police Officer Paul Schwab was dispatched to
investigate the incident. He concluded that the perpetrator had gained entry by breaking a
sliding glass window, and that approximately $50 had been stolen from an unlocked cash box.
Evidence technician Robert Brien processed the crime scene, lifted fingerprints, and applied the
prints to cards. Brien stated in his report that the latent prints from the point of entry and the
cash box had been placed on file. By all accounts, at the time the prints were lifted, no potential
suspects existed.
The latent prints were forwarded to the Oakland County Sheriff 's Department and placed
in the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS). Eventually, the AFIS identified one
latent print on a white card as matching defendant's right middle finger, and defendant was
-1-
charged with breaking and entering in connection with the incident.
preliminary examination and was bound over for trial.
Defendant waived a
Brien died before trial, and defendant subsequently moved to exclude seven cards
containing latent prints purportedly gathered by Brien at the crime scene on the ground that they
constituted inadmissible hearsay. Each of the seven cards had a latent print on one side and
Brien's signature, the location of the lift, and information regarding the offense, including the
complaint number and date, on the other side. Three of the seven cards were black and
contained latent prints purportedly lifted from the cash box. It is undisputed that none of the
latent prints on the black cards match defendant's fingerprints. The other four cards, one of
which contained a latent print that matched defendant's fingerprint, were white and contained
latent prints purportedly lifted from the sliding glass window. Following an evidentiary hearing,
the trial court granted defendant's motion to exclude the four white cards on the ground that the
prosecution failed to lay a proper foundation for admission of the white cards. The court denied
defendant's motion to exclude the three black cards.
II. The White Cards
The prosecution argues that the trial court erred by concluding that the prosecution failed
to provide the proper foundation for admission of the four white cards. We disagree.
This Court reviews for an abuse of discretion a trial court's decision to admit or exclude
evidence. People v Watson, 245 Mich App 572, 575; 629 NW2d 411 (2001). We also review
for an abuse of discretion the trial court's decision whether a proponent has sufficiently
authenticated an item for admission into evidence. An abuse of discretion exists if an
unprejudiced person would find no justification for the court's ruling. People v Ford, 262 Mich
App 443, 460; 687 NW2d 119 (2004). A decision on a close evidentiary question ordinarily
cannot be an abuse of discretion. People v Sabin (After Remand), 463 Mich 43, 67; 614 NW2d
888 (2000).
The prosecution argues that the white cards are admissible under the business records
exception, MRE 803(6), or the public records exception, MRE 803(8), to the hearsay rule. But
even if an exception to the hearsay rule would allow admission of the evidence, the exception
does not absolve the offering party from the usual requirements of authentication.1 Before
demonstrative evidence can be admitted at trial, it must be properly authenticated or identified.
"The burden rests with the party seeking to admit the evidence to show that the foundational
prerequisites have been satisfied." People v Burton, 433 Mich 268, 304 n 16; 445 NW2d 133
(1989). The proper foundation for admissibility of evidence is governed by MRE 901(a), which
states, "The requirement of authentication or identification as a condition precedent to
1
Our concurring colleague agrees that the prosecution failed to establish a foundation for the
admission of the evidence, but additionally determines that the cards are hearsay that is not
within any exception. We find it unnecessary to address this issue in light of our determination
that the prosecution failed to properly authenticate the evidence.
-2-
admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is
what its proponent claims." See also People v Furman, 158 Mich App 302, 331; 404 NW2d 246
(1987). Under MRE 901(b)(1), testimony of a witness with knowledge that "a matter is what it
is claimed to be" can be used for authentication or identification.
The initial issue before this Court concerns the existence of foundational support for the
prosecution's claim that the white cards contain latent prints that were actually lifted by Brien at
the scene, i.e., that they are what they purport to be. The prosecution sought to authenticate the
evidence primarily through the testimony of Schwab and the content of the cards themselves.
Schwab testified that he arrived at the crime scene at approximately 11:30 a.m. and that Brien
arrived after that. Schwab testified that he assisted Brien and "watched" Brien process the crime
scene. He observed Brien apply graphite dust to the areas around the sliding glass window and
the cash box, and then apply clear tape to lift the prints. Schwab explained that Brien then
attached each piece of tape to one side of a black card and wrote on the other side of the black
card. Schwab did not know the content of Brien's writing on the back of the cards at that time.
Schwab testified that he observed Brien use only black cards, and there was no testimony that
Brien used any white cards to process the crime scene. Schwab admitted that he could not state
with certainty that the cards were prepared on August 20, 2003, absent the handwriting on the
cards, and that he would have to rely on Brien's handwriting on the cards to know the location
from which each print was lifted. In a supplemental police report prepared after Brien's death for
the purpose of assisting in the admission of the latent prints on the cards, Schwab stated that he
watched Brien lift "3 to 4 prints" with tape from the area surrounding the sliding glass window
and "watched Brien secure the tape to a piece of black cardboard . . . ." In response to the trial
court's inquiry, the prosecution was not able to offer a plausible explanation for the discrepancy
between the color of the white card bearing defendant's latent fingerprint and Schwab's
testimony.
Additionally, the prosecution relied on Schwab's and Bloomfield Township Detective
James Cutright's identification of Brien's signature on the white cards, as well as Schwab's
testimony that the correct complaint number, offense, and date were listed on the white cards in
Brien's handwriting. But the initial issue before this Court is not the authenticity or
identification of the handwriting on the white cards as Brien's; rather, it is the existence of
foundational support for the prosecution's claim that the white cards contain latent prints that
were actually lifted from the crime scene, i.e., that they are what they are claimed to be.
Furman, supra at 331. While one could speculate why defendant's latent fingerprint was on a
white card rather than a black card, such speculation is not a sufficient basis to find that the trial
court abused its discretion. Ford, supra at 460. Under these circumstances, we find that the trial
court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the prosecution failed to authenticate the
four white cards and that the proper foundation for admission of the evidence was not
established.2
2
Under these facts, the prosecution's argument regarding the chain of custody is premature.
"Once a proper foundation has been established, any deficiencies in the chain of custody go to
(continued…)
-3-
In light of our holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the
white cards on the ground that the prosecution failed to provide a proper foundation for
admission of the evidence, the issues whether the white cards are admissible under the hearsay
exceptions contained in MRE 803(6) or (8) and whether admission of the white cards would
violate defendant's right of confrontation under Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36, 68; 124 S
Ct 1354; 158 L Ed 2d 177 (2004), are moot. As a general rule, an appellate court will not review
a moot issue. B P 7 v Bureau of State Lottery, 231 Mich App 356, 359; 586 NW2d 117 (1998).
III. The Black Cards
We also find it unnecessary to address defendant's issues on cross-appeal concerning the
admissibility of the three black cards. None of the latent fingerprints on the black cards matched
defendant's fingerprints. Because we have concluded that the white card containing the latent
fingerprint was properly excluded, and because the prosecution concedes that dismissal is
required without the white card, consideration of this issue is not necessary.
Affirmed.
Cavanagh, J., concurred.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
(…continued)
the weight afforded to the evidence, rather than its admissibility." People v White, 208 Mich
App 126, 133; 527 NW2d 34 (1994) (emphasis added).
-4-
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.