Background
Douglas Michael Laming was convicted in 2024 of first-degree murder under alternate theories of premeditated murder and felony murder for the 1980 abduction, sexual assault, and shooting death of a young woman near Port Huron. He received life imprisonment without parole as a second-offense habitual offender.
DNA testing conducted decades after the crime linked biological material recovered from the victim to Laming and Anthony Harris. Harris, who pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in exchange for his cooperation, testified that he and Laming abducted and sexually assaulted the victim and that Laming then shot her. Laming testified that he had consensual sex with the victim earlier that night but denied participating in her abduction, assault, or murder.
On appeal, Laming challenged the medical examiner’s characterization of the killing as a “sexually-motivated homicide,” the aiding-and-abetting instructions, counsel’s failure to request accomplice-witness instructions, the sufficiency of the felony-murder evidence, a witness’s reference to passing a polygraph, restrictions on defense closing argument, and the cumulative effect of the asserted errors.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. It concluded that the medical examiner likely could offer his opinion that the homicide was sexually motivated and that, even if the testimony was improper, it was not prejudicial because the evidence independently made the sexual nature of the crime apparent. The prosecutor therefore committed no plain error by eliciting or referencing that testimony.
The court held that the evidence supported instructing the jury on aiding and abetting because jurors could find that Laming participated in the overall criminal scheme even if Harris fired one or both fatal shots. It agreed that defense counsel likely performed deficiently by failing to request the standard cautionary instructions for accomplice testimony, but found no reasonable probability of a different verdict because counsel extensively attacked Harris’s credibility and plea agreement, and substantial evidence apart from Harris’s testimony supported guilt.
The court also found sufficient evidence of felony murder because the sexual assaults and killing formed an unbroken chain of events. It upheld the denial of a mistrial because the polygraph reference was isolated and inadvertent and the jury was twice instructed to disregard it. The trial court properly barred defense counsel from arguing facts not introduced into evidence concerning the punishment Harris otherwise faced, and no cumulative prejudice undermined confidence in the verdict.
Key Takeaways
- A felony-murder conviction was supported where the sexual assaults and killing occurred as part of a continuous course of conduct, regardless of which participant committed the final assault or fired the fatal shots.
- An aiding-and-abetting instruction may be warranted even when the prosecution’s cooperating witness identifies the defendant as the shooter, because jurors may accept only portions of a witness’s account.
- Although counsel likely should have requested accomplice-witness instructions, extensive impeachment of the accomplice and strong independent evidence defeated the ineffective-assistance claim.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how Michigan’s felony-murder doctrine reaches a killing committed during the continuous sequence surrounding a predicate felony, including conduct intended to prevent identification after a sexual assault. It also confirms that principal and aiding-and-abetting theories may be submitted together when the evidence permits different conclusions about each participant’s precise role.
For trial counsel, the opinion underscores the importance of requesting cautionary accomplice instructions when a cooperating participant testifies. It also shows that failure to request them will not require reversal when the jury otherwise receives the substance of the credibility challenge and the record contains substantial corroborating evidence.