Background
Ronald Hill was convicted of second-degree murder, felon in possession of a firearm, carrying a concealed weapon, and two counts of felony-firearm in connection with the fatal shooting of Jordan Boston in Detroit. Surveillance video showed the driver of a white van arguing with Boston, shooting him twice, returning to the vehicle, and then firing five more shots.
Witnesses who knew Hill identified him in the surveillance footage by his appearance, voice, demeanor, and manner of walking. Other evidence connected Hill to the white minivan shown in the video, placed his vehicle and phone near relevant locations, and showed that he sent a grainy video of the shooting to a friend and later told friends that he needed to “disappear ASAP.” Hill appealed, challenging a prosecutor’s unanswered question about removing gunpowder residue, the dismissal and replacement of a deliberating juror, the timing of the replacement-juror instruction, and several additional issues raised in a Standard 4 brief.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the prosecutor’s single, unanswered question asking Hill’s wife whether she had searched online for how to remove gunpowder residue did not warrant a mistrial or reversal. Without deciding whether the question was improper, the court concluded that it caused no outcome-determinative prejudice because it was isolated, was never answered or mentioned during closing argument, was followed by a curative instruction, and was outweighed by substantial properly admitted evidence of guilt.
The court also held that the trial judge acted within her discretion by excusing a juror whose previously disclosed, nonchangeable travel plans conflicted with continued deliberations. The trial court did violate MCR 6.411 by allowing the replacement juror to participate in deliberations before instructing the reconstituted jury to begin anew. But the error did not require reversal: after receiving the proper instruction, the jury deliberated for approximately another hour and returned a unanimous verdict, and Hill offered only speculation that the earlier deliberations affected the result.
The panel further rejected Hill’s Standard 4 claims. It found sufficient identification evidence, no double-jeopardy violation arising from the firearm convictions, no reversible prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument, and no ineffective assistance based on counsel’s failure to seek a directed verdict.
Key Takeaways
- An isolated prosecutorial question that is never answered may be harmless when the court promptly instructs the jury to disregard it and the properly admitted evidence is strong.
- A trial court may excuse a deliberating juror for an unavoidable scheduling conflict and substitute a properly selected alternate when the defendant cannot show prejudice.
- A replacement juror instruction must be given before the reconstituted jury deliberates, but violating that timing requirement is subject to outcome-determinative prejudice review.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that Michigan’s postsubmission juror-substitution procedure requires a newly constituted jury to be instructed to start deliberations over before it begins deliberating. A failure to follow that sequence is error, but it does not automatically invalidate a conviction.
The opinion also illustrates the demanding prejudice showing required for reversal based on an unanswered prosecutorial question, juror substitution, or instructional error when the record contains substantial evidence of guilt and the trial court later gives an appropriate curative instruction.