By By JOHN EBY / Dowagiac Daily News
Terrell Michael Blackamore sold four "dime" ($10) bags of marijuana to a confidential informant (CI) for the Cass County Drug Enforcement Team.
A jury trial convicted him of one count of delivery of marijuana and sentenced him to 30 months to eight years in prison.
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed that verdict April 12.
Judges Janet T. Neff, Helene N. White and Michael J. Talbot rejected Blackamore's contention that there was insufficient credible evidence to convict him of selling marijuana to the CI.
The Court of Appeals said trial evidence established that the CI and Det. David Toxopeus of the Dowagiac Police Department both knew the defendant before the controlled buy, were able to distinguish himfrom his twin brother and identified him during the controlled buy.
Further, the court said, Blackamore's testimony that his supplier lives two minutes away and that he had driven his fiancee to Midway Airport for her flight to Las Vegas that morning supports the CI's testimony that the defendant left and returned during the controlled buy, and that he told her that he had given or sold the last of his marijuana to a friend who just left for Las Vegas.
Blackamore also contends that because he had an alibi, there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction.
Blackamore argues that the trial court erred in not allowing the jury to view the house on Cherry Street in Dowagiac from Toxopeus' vantage point because photographic and measurement evidence was insufficient to show the detective was too far away to identify the defendant.
The court also stated, "We find that a jury view was unnecessary and would not have affected the outcome of the trial. The record shows that defendant's primary purpose for the jury view, to impeach Toxopeus' testimony about his distance from the house, was extinguished by his testimony that his measured distance from the Cherry Street house was 149 yards away. Because photographs and diagrams were also admitted into evidence, we find that a jury view would have been cumulative."
Blackamore also claimed prosecutorial misconduct, for which the test is whether the defendant was denied a fair and impartial trial.
Judges wrote, "Defendant contends that Toxopeus' testimony that he knew defendant and had seen him before at 108 Cherry implied that defendant was under investigation for other activities. We find that the testimony was relevant and admissible to show defendant's identity, and was highly probative given that Toxopeus testified that during the controlled buy he saw defendant leave the house and return a short while later. Thus, defendant's argument fails."
Blackamore argues that the prosecutor argued facts that were not in evidence during his closing argument and also that the prosecutor improperly expressed a personal belief in the facts of the case by stating that the CI was telling the truth.
The prosecutor denigrated the defense by stating during his rebuttal argument that the defense was using a "little ploy" and leading the jury on a "goose chase," which was improper, but the "harmless" error did not affect the defendant's right to a fair trial, according to the seven-page opinion.
The court rejected the defendant's arguments that his sentence was "disproportionate" as lacking merit and that his counsel's assistance had been ineffective.