Background
On August 19, 2020, defendant Antonio Javone Cummings shot Ronardo Wright at the Leland Apartments in Detroit during a confrontation over payment. Cummings was engaged in sex trafficking 17-year-old Jakyah Demps and had driven her to the apartments to meet a customer. When Wright paid only $20 instead of the agreed $80, Cummings said he would “beat dog a**” and went to the apartment with Demps and another woman, Denaya Fielder. Cummings attempted to kick down Wright’s door, then fired several shots through it with a handgun. Wright sustained two gunshot wounds to the chest and died from his injuries.
Demps, who had been charged with second-degree murder, pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder in exchange for testifying against Cummings. She identified Cummings as the shooter at trial. Fielder’s testimony corroborated Demps’s account. Surveillance footage showed Cummings’s vehicle at the apartments that night, and cellular-location evidence placed his phone near the building. Cummings was convicted by jury of felony murder, felon in possession of a firearm, and two counts of felony-firearm as a habitual offender and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Cummings appealed, arguing the trial court erred by failing to give the jury instructions applicable to accomplice testimony under Michigan Criminal Jury Instructions 5.4 and 5.6, and that trial counsel was ineffective for not requesting those instructions.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Regarding the jury instruction claim, the court held that Cummings waived the issue by affirmatively approving the jury instructions. When the trial court explicitly asked whether counsel objected to the manner in which the instructions had been read, defense counsel responded, “No, Your Honor.” This response constituted affirmative approval of the instructions, extinguishing any error and precluding appellate review. The court noted that counsel was not obligated to request specific accomplice instructions when the jury received general witness-credibility instructions.
Even assuming the omission constituted plain error, the court found it harmless. The jury heard corroborating evidence: Fielder testified consistently with Demps; surveillance footage placed Cummings’s vehicle at the scene; and cellular-location evidence placed his phone near the apartment building. Defense counsel had extensively cross-examined Demps about her plea agreement and incentive to shift blame to Cummings, and the trial court specifically instructed the jury to consider that agreement when evaluating her credibility. This combination of corroborating evidence and credibility challenges rendered the omitted accomplice instructions non-prejudicial.
The court rejected Cummings’s ineffective assistance claim for the same reason: even assuming counsel performed deficiently by failing to request the accomplice instructions, Cummings could not demonstrate prejudice. The jury received sufficient protection for Cummings’s substantial rights through cross-examination, corroborating evidence, and the credibility instruction addressing Demps’s prosecution agreement.
Key Takeaways
- Waiver of jury instruction claims requires affirmative approval when a trial court specifically solicits objections after reading final instructions; silence or “no objection” in response to that solicitation constitutes waiver, not mere forfeiture.
- Accomplice instruction omission is harmless error when the jury receives general credibility instructions, defense counsel thoroughly attacks the accomplice’s credibility through cross-examination, and corroborating evidence supports the defendant’s guilt independent of the accomplice’s testimony.
- An appellant bears the burden of furnishing the appellate court with a complete record sufficient to verify claimed errors; conclusory assertions without factual development or necessary documentation will not support reversal.
- Trial counsel’s stipulation to an element of a charge (here, prior felony ineligibility) constitutes reasonable trial strategy when it avoids exposing the jury to prejudicial details while preserving the prosecution’s obligation to prove other disputed elements.
Why It Matters
This decision reaffirms that accomplice-testimony protections can be satisfied through aggressive cross-examination and proper credibility instructions rather than specific statutory jury instructions, particularly when strong corroborating evidence exists. The opinion clarifies that express approval of jury instructions after the trial court’s specific request for objections constitutes waiver, not merely forfeiture, and bars appellate review. For practitioners, the decision emphasizes the critical importance of developing a complete appellate record and making specific factual offers of proof; courts will not speculate about missing evidence or reverse on conclusory assertions.
The case also illustrates challenges in sex-trafficking prosecutions where the victim-witness may have conflicting interests or reduced credibility due to her involvement in the crime. The court’s holding that accomplice-testimony safeguards can be met without specific jury instructions may impact defense strategy in cases involving accomplices whose testimony is essential to the prosecution’s case, particularly where the accomplice has received a favorable plea agreement.