People Vs Smith Case Brief

In the case of the People versus Smith, it struggles with conflicts and balances. The verdict was decided by the Supreme Court of Michigan in 1991. The issue at hand was that the defendant, Ricky Franklin Smith, argued that he should be re-sentenced because of the action of the presentence investigation report of his previously expunged juvenile record. The Court of Appeals in Michigan agreed with the defendant and required that Smith is sentenced again. However, The Supreme Court heard the case and reverses the decision stating that Smith did not need to be sentenced again on the basis of the inclusion of his juvenile record alone. Based upon his decision to plead guilty, Smith was convicted of breaking and entering. This was also his fourth

The complainant joined the gym to improve his chances of making the varsity baseball team. Smith was a thirty-one-year-old bodybuilder, from whom others, including the complainant, sought weightlifting advice. At some point, Smith and the complainant exchanged telephone numbers. The complainant testified that, at that time, Smith had told him that he expected the complainant to call him. Shortly thereafter, in January 1991, the complainant telephoned the defendant to invite him out for a movie and pizza. Smith picked up the complainant and later picked up his roommate to join them. Smith testified that he and his roommate had been in a homosexual relationship for two years. That evening, they became engaged in a conversation revolved around baseball and bodybuilding. The complainant testified that he did not understand why Smith's roommate had come along. One week later, the complainant called Smith to ask if he wanted to go bowling. Smith suggested that they watch a movie at his house instead. Smith again picked up the complainant and they returned to his house. The complainant testified that while watching the movie Smith stated that he found him interesting and if he was open-minded. Later, Smith questioned the defendant pertaining to, “What do you think about getting your dick sucked?” The complainant stated, “I'm not funny if that is what you mean.” Soon thereafter, two

He appealed the decision and challenged the admission of the hearsay statement. Furthermore, Smith claimed that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to sufficient counsel due to his attorney had been charged with a criminal offense in the same county. The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction for multiple reasons. It upheld that the statement did not qualify as an excited utterance, but that the admission of the statement was a harmless error. The Court found no conflict of interest because the prosecutor and the judge involved in counsel's case were not the same as those in Smith's case, on behalf of the effective assistance of counsel