PEOPLE OF MI V ROY BLACKMON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
FOR PUBLICATION
August 19, 2008
9:10 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 277184
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 98-005154
ROY BLACKMON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Advance Sheets Version
Before: Markey, P.J., and White and Wilder, JJ.
WHITE, J. (concurring).
I agree with Judge Wilder’s legal conclusion that where the violation of a specific
constitutional right is not at issue, the standard for determining whether there has been error of a
constitutional magnitude in violation of the Due Process Clause is as stated in Donnelly v
DeChristoforo, 416 US 637, 643; 94 S Ct 1868; 40 L Ed 2d 431 (1974), and Darden v
Wainwright, 477 US 168; 106 S Ct 2464; 91 L Ed 2d 144 (1986)—“whether the error so infected
the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.”
A panel of this Court previously found both trial-court error in the admission of evidence
and prosecutorial misconduct, but found that because the error did not undermine the reliability
of the verdict, the error were harmless. This is a somewhat different inquiry from the question
whether the error so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial
of due process.
Having read the transcript, I conclude that the error did not so infect the trial with
unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process. The trial was focused on
the question whether defendant was guilty of the charged offenses, based on assessment of the
credibility of the various witnesses. While the gang evidence was erroneously injected into the
trial, my reading of the transcript leads me to conclude that the injection of this issue into the
trial did not result in the jury’s attention being redirected away from the essential question of
guilt based on the evidence to the question of guilt based on association, character, or other
extraneous or prejudicial factor. Having so concluded, I agree that the trial was not so unfair as
to render the conviction a denial of due process and, thus, the error was not of constitutional
magnitude.
/s/ Helene N. White
-1-
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.
