People v. Gray

9 Citing cases

  1. People v. Scholtes

    No. 341614 (Mich. Ct. App. May. 9, 2019)

    This argument lacks merit. In People v Gray, 466 Mich 44, 45-46; 642 NW2d 660 (2002), the Michigan Supreme Court rejected the defendant's argument that he was denied due process when, during the cross-examination of three alibi witnesses who testified at his trial, the prosecution attempted to impeach the witnesses by demonstrating that they had not come forward in advance of trial with the exculpatory information about the defendant. The Gray Court adopted the reasoning of this Court in People v Phillips, 217 Mich App 489; 552 NW2d 487 (1996) in concluding "that no special foundation is necessary before the trier of fact may be apprised that an alibi witness failed to come forward earlier with exculpatory information."

  2. People v. Hassel

    No. 346378 (Mich. Ct. App. Jul. 23, 2020)

    A prosecutor may properly question an alibi witness about his or her failure to come forward earlier, and such questioning does not implicate the defendant's constitutional rights. See People v Gray, 466 Mich 44, 48; 642 NW2d 660 (2002) ("A tardily raised or incredible claim of alibi may be challenged as part of the truth-seeking process that is a criminal trial."); see also United States v Aguwa, 123 F3d 418, 420-421 (CA 6, 1997). As this Court has stated, the "credibility of a witness may be attacked by showing that he failed to speak or act when it would have been natural to do so if the facts were in accordance with his testimony."

  3. People v. Martin

    No. 320937 (Mich. Ct. App. Jul. 21, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    And though a criminal defendant has the right to present a defense, "that right is not cloaked with protection from vigorous cross-examination." People v Gray, 466 Mich 44, 48; 642 NW2d 660 (2002). Accordingly, "[w]here a defendant puts forth an alibi defense, that defense can be challenged by cross-examination concerning unexplained delays in its assertion or untruths in its substance."

  4. People v. Watkins

    No. 313390 (Mich. Ct. App. Jul. 29, 2014)

    As defendant correctly observes, when a defendant puts forth an alibi defense, that defense can be challenged by cross-examination concerning unexplained delays in its assertion or untruths in its substance. People v Gray, 466 Mich 44, 48; 642 NW2d 660 (2002). While defendant specifically challenges the prosecutor's

  5. People v. Mathis

    No. 317519 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    "A defendant in a criminal case has a right to present a defense, but that right is not cloaked with protection from vigorous crossexamination." People v Gray, 466 Mich 44, 48; 642 NW2d 660 (2002). Finally, Rogers argues that the trial court's ruling violated his right to confront the witnesses against him because it limited the scope of his cross-examination of Barnes.

  6. People v. Davis

    No. 315029 (Mich. Ct. App. Jun. 17, 2014)

    Although Emery and Perkins do not bind this Court because they were issued before November 1990, MCR 7.215(J), no binding precedent of this Court or the Michigan Supreme Court has overruled the nonalibi witness principles discussed in Emery and Perkins. In People v Gray, 466 Mich 44, 49; 642 NW2d 660 (2002), our Supreme Court held "that it is unnecessary for a prosecutor to establish any special foundation before cross-examining an alibi witness about the witness' failure to have come forward with information at an earlier time." In Perkins, id. at 195-196, quoting People v Grisham, 125 Mich App 280, 288; 335 NW2d 680 (1983), this Court reiterated the manners in which the knowledge possessed by nonalibi witnesses differs from that known by alibi witnesses:

  7. People v. Stewart

    No. 313097 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 25, 2014)   Cited 2 times

    "A defendant in a criminal case has a right to present a defense, but that right is not cloaked with protection from vigorous cross-examination." People v Gray, 466 Mich 44, 48; 642 NW2d 660 (2002). Defendant next argues that the prosecutor, during closing argument, misrepresented Hamilton's redacted statements to police investigators.

  8. People v. Wilson

    No. 300274 (Mich. Ct. App. May. 30, 2013)

    Therefore, our review of this issue is limited to Wilson's claim that defense counsel was ineffective for stipulating to the evidence. In People v Gray, 466 Mich 44, 48; 642 NW2d 660 (2002), our Supreme Court held that "[a] tardily raised or incredible claim of alibi may be challenged as part of the truth-seeking process that is a criminal trial." Thus, "[w]here a defendant puts forth an alibi defense, that defense can be challenged by . . . unexplained delays in its assertion[.]"

  9. People v. Macovei

    No. 305577 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2012)

    The prosecutor's line of questioning was not improper. "[N]o special foundation is necessary before the trier of fact may be apprised that an alibi witness failed to come forward earlier with exculpatory information." People v Gray, 466 Mich 44, 47; 642 NW2d 660 (2002). The Michigan Supreme Court decided in Gray, contrary to defendant's argument, that the prosecution did not have to establish that it was natural for a witness to come forward earlier before it could question the witness on the subject.