Background
A jury convicted Jason Mark Thompson of armed robbery after a masked man carrying a knife robbed a Speedway gas station in Rochester Hills during the early morning of April 23, 2022. The principal issue at trial was the robber’s identity.
Surveillance footage traced a similarly dressed person from the nearby Red Roof Inn toward the Speedway before the robbery and back toward the hotel afterward. Video showed Thompson returning to the hotel about 30 minutes after the robbery wearing clothing and distinctive square-toed boots resembling those worn by the robber and appearing to drop dollar bills. Police found a red hooded sweatshirt, knit cap, mask, and knife along the route between the hotel and gas station. A search of Thompson’s hotel room uncovered matching pants and boots, as well as a two-pack of black gloves with one pair missing.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, it held that a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Thompson was the robber. Although no direct evidence identified him, the court described the combined surveillance footage, clothing, physical evidence, timing, travel route, facial profile, and dropped currency as overwhelming circumstantial evidence of identity.
The court also rejected Thompson’s unpreserved due-process claim concerning additional security footage from the Red Roof Inn and a nearby Days Inn. Because the government never possessed that footage, it could not have failed to preserve it, and due process did not require police to collect potentially exculpatory evidence they never possessed. Thompson also failed to establish bad faith.
Finally, the court found no plain error in admitting the investigating detective’s testimony comparing surveillance images with Thompson’s clothing and boots. Much of the testimony did not identify Thompson as the robber and was helpful lay opinion based on the detective’s review of grainy footage. To the extent other testimony presented a closer question, it could fairly be understood as describing what Thompson wore rather than identifying him in the robbery footage. Counsel was not ineffective for declining to object because that decision could have been strategic and, given the overwhelming identity evidence, an objection would not have created a reasonable probability of a different result.
Key Takeaways
- Circumstantial evidence alone may prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt, and the combined evidence tying Thompson to the robbery was overwhelming.
- Police generally do not violate due process by failing to preserve potentially useful evidence that they never possessed, particularly absent bad faith.
- An investigator may offer helpful lay testimony comparing clothing or objects in unclear surveillance images when the testimony is based on personal review and does not improperly decide the defendant’s identity for the jury.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how surveillance footage from multiple locations, distinctive clothing, recovered objects, timing, and travel patterns can collectively establish identity even without eyewitness identification, usable DNA, or other direct proof.
It also distinguishes a failure to preserve evidence already held by the government from a failure to collect privately held footage, while emphasizing that challenges to police image-comparison testimony depend on whether the witness merely assists the jury or expressly resolves the disputed question of identity.