Background
On the night of May 24–25, 2022, Javonte Rosa and codefendants Rhishy Javon Manning and Jaheim Hayes-Goree conducted a crime spree in the Grand Rapids area. The spree included an armed robbery of a Family Dollar store and an ATM robbery at Huntington Bank in which customer Joseph Wilder was killed. Additional crimes included vehicle thefts and robberies at a Speedway gas station and other locations. Surveillance cameras captured each crime, with the perpetrators’ faces concealed but identifiable by distinctive clothing and shoes. Cell phone location data and Flock traffic cameras placed Rosa with the codefendants throughout the spree. Rosa was arrested on May 26, 2022, and charged with first-degree felony murder, armed robbery, conspiracy, and firearms offenses.
At trial, the prosecution relied on surveillance video evidence and cell phone location data placing Rosa at all crime scenes. Rosa wore distinctive light-gray hooded sweatshirt with yellow and red shoes, and sometimes a blue and orange varsity jacket, all captured on video and found at his residence after arrest. A Smith & Wesson semiautomatic handgun found near Rosa matched ammunition recovered from Wilder’s body. Manning and Hayes-Goree were convicted of all charges including felony murder.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Rosa’s first-degree felony murder conviction. Rosa challenged the conviction on two grounds. First, he moved for a new trial based on written statements from Manning and Hayes-Goree denying his involvement in the ATM robbery and murder. The court rejected this, holding that the statements were not “newly discovered evidence” under the established Cress test. The statements were merely “newly available”—Rosa knew his codefendants had been present during the crimes and could have testified at trial. The court found the statements were inadmissible hearsay because Rosa failed to establish that Manning and Hayes-Goree would waive their Fifth Amendment privilege. The statements also contradicted substantial surveillance video evidence placing Rosa at the scene.
Regarding Rosa’s claim that his conviction was against the great weight of evidence, the court found sufficient evidence of guilt. Rosa actively participated in the Family Dollar robbery, firing his gun despite encountering no resistance, demonstrating willingness to use deadly force. Cell phone location data and surveillance video placed him at all crime locations. The pattern of activity—with Rosa, Manning, and Hayes-Goree rotating roles in completing robberies and providing getaway assistance—established that Rosa knowingly participated in the felony murder either as a principal or aider and abettor, satisfying the requisite malice element.
Key Takeaways
- Codefendants’ posttrial exculpatory statements cannot be “newly discovered evidence” when the defendant knew the codefendants were present during the crimes and had the ability to testify at trial.
- A codefendant’s later disavowal or recantation of an exculpatory statement undermines its reliability and trustworthiness, particularly when the statement was not sworn.
- In felony murder cases, circumstantial evidence—including surveillance video identifying distinctive clothing and cell phone location data—can establish guilt and an aider and abettor’s liability.
- An aider and abettor to felony murder must possess the requisite malice; presence and knowing participation in a coordinated crime spree, combined with demonstrated willingness to use deadly force, establishes such malice.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces Michigan law preventing defendants from obtaining new trials based on codefendants’ later statements when those defendants knew at trial that the codefendants possessed potentially exculpatory testimony. The opinion rejects the more flexible, case-by-case approach suggested in a concurrence to People v. Terrell, maintaining that defendants must pursue available procedural remedies at trial, such as severance agreements or immunity offers, rather than rely on appellate remedies based on posttrial statements. This protects the finality of convictions and prevents defendants from using the Fifth Amendment invocation of codefendants as a basis for reopening cases.
The ruling also clarifies felony murder liability in coordinated crime sprees. A defendant need not directly participate in every robbery or murder; knowing participation in a pattern of armed robbery, combined with demonstrated willingness to use deadly force and presence throughout the criminal enterprise, establishes liability as an aider and abettor. The decision demonstrates that modern forensic evidence—surveillance video and cell phone location data—can reliably establish presence and participation even when the defendant’s face is concealed.