Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

Order 

January 24, 2020

157936

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 157936

COA: 328759

Kent CC: 15-000869-FC

JAMAL DEVONTA BENNETT,

Defendant-Appellant.

___________________________________________/ 

On December 11, 2019, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave 

to appeal the April 17, 2018 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the 

application is again considered. MCR 7.305(H)(1). In lieu of granting leave to appeal, we 

REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals as to its conclusion that defendant failed 

to show that admission of the rap videos was outcome-determinative.

“[A] defendant has the burden of establishing that it is more probable than not that 

the error in question ‘undermined the reliability of the verdict,’ thereby making the error 

‘outcome determinative.’ ” People v Snyder, 462 Mich 38, 45 (2000), quoting People v 

Lukity, 460 Mich 484, 495-496 (1999) (brackets omitted). The Court of Appeals here 

concluded that admission of the rap videos was not outcome-determinative because several 

witnesses had identified defendant as the shooter. If defendant’s theory of the case had 

been one of misidentification, then the overwhelming weight of the evidence 

demonstrating that defendant shot the victim may well have compelled the conclusion that 

admission of the rap videos was not outcome-determinative. However, defendant 

advanced a self-defense and a defense-of-others theory, supported largely by Sammie 

Butler-Coleman’s testimony that the victim and another man had been beating defendant’s 

friend at the time defendant fired the fatal shots. Thus, defendant’s state-of-mind, not his 

identity, was the principal question before the jury. And defendant has sustained his burden 

of showing that, viewing the trial as a whole, admission of the rap videos undermined the 

reliability of the verdict. These videos portrayed defendant as a ruthless and menacing 

threat to the community who would shoot upon the least provocation. Further, while other 
I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 24, 2020

b0121

2

Clerk

evidence in the record discounted defendant’s defense-of-others theory, the prosecutor 

relied heavily upon the videos to establish defendant’s state-of-mind and to satisfy the 

state’s burden of overcoming defendant’s prima facie claim that he shot in defense of 

another. To this point, the prosecutor focused a substantial portion of his closing argument 

upon the videos, replaying clips of them and drawing comparisons between the lyrics of 

songs in the videos and the shooting. Finally, the trial court’s instruction to the jury that it 

could rely upon the videos in assessing defendant’s motive and intent may well have 

exacerbated the prejudice caused by admission of the videos. 

For the aforementioned reasons, we VACATE defendant’s convictions and 

REMAND this case to the Kent Circuit Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with 

this order.