-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

March 10, 2015 

v No. 319414 

Wayne Circuit Court 

JASON ROSELL PECK, LC No. 13-005447-FC 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: GLEICHER, P.J., and CAVANAGH and FORT HOOD, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 A jury convicted defendant of felony murder, MCL 750.316(1)(b), and torture, MCL 

750.85, in relation to the stabbing death of Stacy Hightower.1 Defendant contends that his trial 

counsel was ineffective for failing to request lesser included offense instructions in connection 

with the felony-murder charge. Such instructions were not supported by a rational view of the 

evidence, however. Defendant challenges counsel’s lack of trial preparation, a claim not 

supported by the record. Defendant also raises a meritless claim of prosecutorial misconduct. 

Absent any discernible error in the trial proceedings, we affirm. 

I. BACKGROUND 

 On the evening in question, defendant met Hightower at a bar where a party was being 

thrown. According to Hightower’s friends, defendant left the party right after Hightower and 

followed her out. Defendant’s friend, on the other hand, testified that defendant left before 

Hightower and that Hightower left with another woman and the disc jockey. Witnesses basically 

agreed on defendant’s apparel that night, however. They asserted that defendant was wearing a 

blue jean jacket and blue denim pants along with white and light blue gym shoes and a pair of 

dark sunglasses. 

 

1

 The prosecutor also charged defendant with first-degree premeditated murder and the jury 

convicted him of the lesser included offense of second-degree murder. The trial court vacated 

that conviction at sentencing. 
-2- 

 About an hour later, a mother, SM, and her teenage son, DM, awakened in their second 

floor apartment to the sound of a man speaking “aggressively” and a woman screaming. They 

called 911. Despite contacting authorities four times, no one came to the rescue and the fight on 

the first floor lasted 45 minutes. At one point during the extended ordeal, the witnesses heard the 

woman beg, “just kill me.” They also heard the victim call her assailant “the devil.” They 

recognized the sounds of a person being slammed against a wall and slapped, and someone 

rummaging loudly through the apartment’s kitchen. They also heard someone unsuccessfully 

trying to open the apartment door, implying that the victim was trying to escape. The mother 

and son saw the assailant when he left the apartment building. He wore a blue jean “outfit” and 

brown boots, and drove away in a white construction van with no windows and a ladder or 

railing on the top. 

 Investigating officers learned defendant’s name from employees at the bar where the 

party had been thrown. They travelled to defendant’s residence and saw a white construction 

van with a roof ladder rack parked in the driveway. Defendant exited the house while the police 

awaited a search warrant. Defendant was wearing tan work boots, like those allegedly worn by 

the assailant. The officers arrested defendant and found a pair of vice grips and bloody socks in 

his pocket. DNA analysis revealed Hightower’s blood on the socks. Defendant’s hands smelled 

like gasoline and bleach. A wet, freshly bleached blue jean outfit was found in defendant’s 

basement. Defendant had a cut on one of his fingers. 

 Officers found Hightower lying face down on the bedroom floor of her apartment. There 

was blood throughout the apartment, including bloody fingerprints on the bedroom wall. A 

piece of a knife blade and handle were found next to Hightower’s body. Hightower had been 

stabbed approximately 60 times all over her body. The fatal cluster of 12 stab wounds was 

located on the back of Hightower’s head and neck. She also had bruising on her right hand and 

face, and several lacerations inside her mouth. Hightower also bore marks from being punched 

and kicked. A pair of sunglasses bearing defendant’s DNA was found inside the apartment. 

 The defense theory was that someone other than defendant committed the murder. In 

support, defense witnesses testified that a white construction van belonging to an unknown third 

party was parked outside the victim’s apartment shortly after the murder. Defendant also 

explained his cut as a work injury from the day before the incident. In closing argument, counsel 

focused on the absence of Hightower’s blood on the denim outfit and the failure to evaluate the 

bloody fingerprint evidence on the bedroom wall. Defense counsel suggested that Hightower 

may have accidentally brought home defendant’s sunglasses, explaining their presence in her 

apartment. Counsel also suggested that the bloody socks found on defendant’s person were 

planted by the police. 

II. JURY INSTRUCTIONS 

 The prosecution charged defendant with alternate counts of first-degree murder—

premeditated and committed during a felony, specifically torture. After instructing the jury on 

the premeditated murder charge, the court informed the jury that it could convict defendant of the 

lesser included offense of second-degree murder. In relation to the felony-murder charge, 

however, the court did not instruct the jury on a lesser included offense. Defendant contends that 

his trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to request this lesser included offense 
-3- 

instruction and approved the instructions as given. Based on these instructions, the jury 

acquitted defendant of premeditated murder and convicted him of the lesser included seconddegree murder charge, as well as felony murder and torture. 

 A party must object or request a given jury instruction to preserve the 

error for review. Absent an objection or request for an instruction, this Court will 

grant relief only when necessary to avoid manifest injustice. Where counsel 

expresses satisfaction with the jury instructions, however, any claim of error is 

deemed waived, leaving nothing for this Court's review. [People v Galloway, 307 

Mich App 151, 157; ___ NW2d ___ (2014) (quotation marks and citations 

omitted.] 

Defendant also failed to preserve his challenge to counsel’s performance by requesting a new 

trial or a Ginther2

 hearing. Our review is therefore limited to errors apparent on the record. Id. 

 “ ‘[T]he right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of 

counsel.’” United States v Cronic, 466 US 648, 654; 104 S Ct 2039; 80 L Ed 2d 

657 (1984), quoting McMann v Richardson, 397 US 759, 771 n 14; 90 S Ct 1441; 

25 L Ed 2d 763 (1970). An ineffective assistance claim includes two 

components: “First, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance was 

deficient. . . . Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance 

prejudiced the defense.” Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 687; 104 S Ct 

2052; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984). To establish the deficiency component, a defendant 

must show that counsel’s performance fell below “an objective standard of 

reasonableness” under “prevailing professional norms.” People v Solmonson, 261 

Mich App 657, 663; 683 NW2d 761 (2004). With respect to the prejudice aspect, 

the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s 

errors, the result of the proceedings would have differed. Id. at 663-664. The 

defendant also must overcome the strong presumptions that his “counsel’s 

conduct [fell] within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance,” and 

that counsel’s actions were sound trial strategy. Strickland, 466 US at 689. 

[Galloway, 307 Mich App at 157-158.] 

 Defendant correctly notes that second-degree murder is a necessarily included lesser 

offense of felony murder. People v Clark, 274 Mich App 248, 257; 732 NW2d 605 (2007), 

quoting People v Carter, 395 Mich 434, 437-438; 236 NW2d 500 (1975). This does not mean 

that defendant was automatically entitled to a second-degree murder instruction. “ ‘[A] requested 

instruction on a necessarily included lesser offense is proper if the charged greater offense 

requires the jury to find a disputed factual element that is not part of the lesser included offense 

and a rational view of the evidence would support it.’ ” People v Smith, 478 Mich 64, 69; 731 

NW2d 411 (2007) (alteration in original), quoting People v Cornell, 466 Mich 335, 357; 711 

NW2d 83 (2006). A defendant is entitled to a retrial before a properly instructed jury if “the 

evidence presented at trial ‘clearly’ supported the lesser included instruction.” People v Silver, 

 

2 People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436; 212 NW2d 922 (1973). 
-4- 

466 Mich 386, 388; 646 NW2d 150 (2002). “A[n] offense is ‘clearly’ supported when there is 

substantial evidence to support the requested lesser instruction.” Id. at 388 n 2. 

 A “rational view of the evidence” did not support the reading of a second-degree murder 

instruction as an alternative lesser offense to felony murder. The elements of second-degree 

murder are: “(1) a death, (2) caused by an act of the defendant, (3) with malice, and (4) without 

justification or excuse.” People v Henderson, 306 Mich App 1, 9; 854 NW2d 234 (2014) 

(citations and quotation marks omitted). “Malice is defined as the intent to kill, the intent to 

cause great bodily harm, or the intent to do an act in wanton and wilful disregard of the 

likelihood that the natural tendency of such behavior is to cause death or great bodily harm.” 

People v Goecke, 457 Mich 442, 464; 579 NW2d 868 (1998). The malice necessary to establish 

a second-degree murder charge is substantively identical to that required for a felony-murder 

conviction. See People v Gayheart, 285 Mich App 202, 210; 776 NW2d 330 (2009). The only 

difference between the two offenses in this case would have been that felony murder required a 

determination that defendant committed torture—the underlying offense. 

 The existence of substantial evidence of torture rendered a lesser second-degree murder 

instruction insupportable. The torture charge underlying defendant’s felony-murder offense is 

defined in MCL 750.85 as follows: 

(1) A person who, with the intent to cause cruel or extreme physical or mental 

pain and suffering, inflicts great bodily injury or severe mental pain or suffering 

upon another person within his or her custody or physical control commits torture 

and is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for life or any term of years. 

(2) As used in this section: 

 (a) “Cruel” means brutal, inhuman, sadistic, or that which torments. 

 (b) “Custody or physical control” means the forcible restriction of a person’s 

movements or forcible confinement of the person so as to interfere with that 

person’s liberty, without that person's consent or without lawful authority. 

 (c) “Great bodily injury” means either of the following: 

 (i) Serious impairment of a body function as that term is defined in . . . MCL 

257.58c. 

 (ii) One or more of the following conditions: internal injury, poisoning, 

serious burns or scalding, severe cuts, or multiple puncture wounds. 

 (d) “Severe mental pain or suffering” means a mental injury that results in a 

substantial alteration of mental functioning that is manifested in a visibly 

demonstrable manner caused by or resulting from any of the following: 

 (i) The intentional infliction or threatened infliction of great bodily injury. 

* * * 
-5- 

 (iii) The threat of imminent death. 

 (iv) The threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, 

[or] great bodily injury. . . . 

(3) Proof that a victim suffered pain is not an element of the crime under this 

section . . . . 

 Hightower’s attack lasted 45 minutes. During this time, her assailant kicked and slapped 

her and slammed her against walls. Hightower attempted to escape as evidenced by the presence 

of blood in multiple rooms of the apartment and the noises heard by the upstairs neighbors. Her 

attacker would not allow her to escape, however. Hightower was heard screaming in pain and 

fright, and even begging the perpetrator to take her life rather than continue with his sadistic acts. 

Ultimately, the killer likely used one of Hightower’s own kitchen knives to repeatedly stab her. 

She bore defensive wounds from trying to stave off the approximately 50 nonfatal knife thrusts. 

Unfortunately, the killer overcame his victim. Hightower was found face down with a dozen 

fatal stab wounds to the back of her head and neck. 

 It is possible from the evidence that the jury could have concluded that defendant did not 

plan his attack ahead of time, thereby supporting a second-degree murder instruction as an 

alternate to the premeditated murder count. The same cannot be said with the second count. 

Substantial evidence of torture placed this offense clearly in the realm of felony murder, negating 

any right to a lesser offense instruction to this charge. Defense counsel cannot be deemed 

ineffective for “[f]ailing to advance a meritless argument or a futile objection.” People v 

Erickson, 288 Mich App 192, 201; 793 NW2d 120 (2010). And absence of this instruction 

would not have merited a retrial. Accordingly, we discern no error in counsel’s conduct.3

III. INVESTIGATION 

 In a pro se brief filed pursuant to Admin Order 2004-6 Standard 4, defendant contends 

that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to “adequately investigate the primary defense 

theory—that [defendant] was not the perpetrator.” In defendant’s estimation, trial counsel failed 

to effectively capitalize on the absence of defendant’s DNA on the bloody socks found in his 

pocket and on the knife found by the victim’s body and thereby doomed his chosen defense 

theory. Defendant further contends that counsel should have selected an altogether different 

strategy: proving that defendant was not the perpetrator based on the upstairs neighbors’ inability 

to identify him. Defendant also challenges defense counsel’s failure to adequately contest the 

sole black and white photograph of the sunglasses found inside Hightower’s apartment and the 

fact that the evidence technicians did not record the location of the glasses on apartment 

diagrams. 

 

3

 Moreover, requesting a lesser included offense instruction would have been inconsistent with 

defense counsel’s trial strategy to create a reasonable doubt that defendant was the murderer. 
-6- 

 The specter of trial strategy cannot insulate all decisions made by trial counsel. 

[A] court must determine whether the strategic choices were made after less than 

complete investigation, and any choice is reasonable precisely to the extent that 

reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation. 

Counsel always retains the duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a 

reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. [People v 

Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich 38, 52; 826 NW2d 136 (2012) (quotation marks and 

citations omitted).] 

 There is no record indication that defense counsel’s investigation was less than adequate. 

Counsel supported his theory that defendant was not the perpetrator. For example, defense 

counsel called defendant’s sister as a trial witness. She testified that she took a photograph a few 

days after defendant’s preliminary examination depicting a white truck with a yellow ladder that 

was parked within 50 feet of Hightower’s apartment building. Defense counsel also called 

Michael Russell as a witness, who testified that defendant received a cut on his hand from 

cutting down trees the day before the incident, not from any attack on the victim. 

 Counsel highlighted what he perceived as a lack of damning DNA evidence. Counsel 

cross-examined a prosecution witness regarding the absence of defendant’s DNA on a piece of 

metal taken from the scene and in the scrapings from underneath Hightower’s fingernails. 

Defense counsel also questioned the witness regarding the lack of Hightower’s blood on the 

clothing defendant had worn the night before. In relation to the sunglasses, counsel interrogated 

another witness about the photograph and the failure to accurately diagram their location. In any 

event, the record reveals that the sunglasses were listed in the evidence technician’s initial report, 

undermining defendant’s suggestion that the police manufactured this evidence. He further 

elicited testimony from the witness regarding the improper handling of the bloody socks. 

Defense counsel, therefore, attempted to undermine the prosecution’s argument that defendant 

was the perpetrator of the crime by questioning the prosecution’s witnesses and calling witnesses 

who offered alternative explanations for the prosecutor’s evidence. Counsel then tied the theory 

together during closing argument. That counsel’s chosen strategy was unsuccessful does not 

render his performance constitutionally defective. Kimmelman v Morrison, 477 US 365, 386; 

106 S Ct 2574; 91 L Ed 2d 305 (1986).4

IV. PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT 

 In his pro se brief, defendant also challenges several comments made by the prosecutor in 

closing argument. Defendant failed to preserve any of these challenges by raising a 

contemporaneous objection in the trial court. See People v Brown, 294 Mich App 377, 382; 811 

NW2d 531 (2011). Our review is therefore limited to plain error affecting defendant’s 

substantial rights. People v Roscoe, 303 Mich App 633, 648; 846 NW2d 402 (2014). A 

 

4

 We acknowledge that defense counsel did not emphasize in closing argument that the upstairs 

neighbors only saw the perpetrator from the waist down and therefore could not identify 

defendant. The evidence was before the jury, and the failure to revisit it in closing was not fatal. 
-7- 

prosecutor engages in misconduct if he or she denies the defendant a fair and impartial trial. Id. 

“Issues of prosecutorial misconduct are decided case by case, and this Court must examine the 

entire record and evaluate a prosecutor’s remarks in context.” Id. (quotation marks and citation 

omitted). 

 Defendant first contends that the prosecutor shifted the burden of proof. In relation to 

this argument, defendant includes a block quote (with quotation marks on either end) with 

several transcript page citations. This language is not actually a quotation, however. Rather, it is 

defendant’s summary or paraphrase of several lines in the prosecutor’s closing argument which 

he is challenging. A prosecutor may not make a statement that shifts the burden of proof onto 

the defendant. People v Fyda, 288 Mich App 446, 463-464; 793 NW2d 712 (2010). 

During his closing argument, the prosecutor stated: 

 [DM] said, I saw a male leaving. He had on bluejeans. He had on a 

bluejean jacket and he had a white shirt that hung down longer than the jacket and 

he says -- there’s some discrepancy about the shoes. He says he didn’t really see 

his shoes, but then he says -- [defendant’s attorney] pointed out that he previously 

testified that he saw dark boots and he sees this man leave and he goes down to 

the end of his hall and he sees the white van leaving the apartment area. 

The prosecutor added, “[DM] did say dark boots cause [defendant’s attorney] pointed out, you 

said dark boots, and he said, if I said it, I said it.” The prosecutor then noted that when defendant 

was taken into custody, he was wearing brown boots. He contended that the boots were “just 

like [DM] said he saw him leaving her house in, brown boots.” The prosecutor cited evidence 

that defendant had several pairs of brown boots in his closet, making it more probable that he had 

a pair of brown boots in his van on the night of the incident. 

 These comments did not shift the burden of proof. Rather, they represent reasonable 

inferences stemming from the evidence presented at trial. See People v Dobek, 274 Mich App 

58, 66; 732 NW2d 546 (2007). DM testified during cross-examination that he could not then 

recall whether the man who exited the apartment was wearing brown boots, but avowed that if he 

had previously made that statement to the police, it was likely true. After further questioning by 

defense counsel, DM stated, “Man, the dude, man, he had boots on, all right.” Evidence 

established that defendant was wearing tan work boots when he was arrested and that at least 

three other pairs were found in his closet. 

 Defendant challenges the prosecutor’s commentary regarding the cut on his finger. The 

prosecutor asserted, “I submit to you that those cuts on [defendant’s] hands are not from a rope. 

They are not from a rope and they are not to the palms. They’re just nicks on his fingers.” The 

prosecutor later reiterated that the rope that defendant used to bring down a tree while at work 

the day before the incident did not cause the cuts on defendant’s hands. According to witnesses, 

defendant did not bear any injuries at the party. Thus, these statements were also reasonable 

inferences stemming from the witness testimony. 

 The prosecutor averred that the investigating officers had collected a “laundry list” of 

evidence, but noted that he would only discuss a few items during closing argument. This 
-8- 

statement did not improperly shift the burden of proof. The prosecutor reiterated that the jury 

had heard the evidence in this case, but he limited his discussion to the evidence he deemed most 

relevant. 

 Finally, the prosecutor’s statement that “Miss Hightower faced -- what she told you that 

night, she faced the devil and the evidence shows that the devil -- that devil sits right here and 

it’s Jason Peck” also constituted a reasonable inference from the facts presented at trial. SM 

testified that she heard Hightower call the man in the apartment the devil. The prosecutor’s 

statement reiterated his position that defendant was the man that attacked Hightower in her 

apartment. The prosecutor was not required to argue his position in the blandest possible terms. 

See Dobek, 274 Mich App at 66. Therefore, the statement constituted a reasonable inference 

from the testimony presented at trial. 

 Defendant also challenges defense counsel’s failure to object to the subject comments. 

As the prosecutor did not cross the line into impropriety, any objection would have been futile. 

Therefore, counsel cannot be deemed ineffective in this regard. See Ericksen, 288 Mich App at 

201 

 We affirm. 

/s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher 

/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh 

/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood