Case Name: PEOPLE v. WYNGAARD
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1997-12-12
Citations: 226 Mich. App. 681
Docket Number: Docket No. 182760
Parties: PEOPLE v WYNGAARD
Judges: Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Sawyer and Markman, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 226
Pages: 681–700

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v WYNGAARD
Docket No. 182760.
Submitted May 14, 1997, at Marquette.
Decided December 12, 1997, at 9:05 a.m.
Leave to appeal sought.
Raymond Wyngaard, an inmate at the Kinross Correctional Facility, was convicted by a jury in the Chippewa Circuit Court, Nicholas J. Lambros, J., of being a prisoner in possession of a controlled substance and of being a third-offense habitual offender. The defendant appealed.
The Court of Appeals held:
The defendant’s convictions must be affirmed and the matter must be remanded for the trial court to conduct an in camera hearing in order to determine whether the confidential informant who told the prison guards that the defendant was in possession of marijuana can provide testimony helpful to the defendant. If the court finds that the informant could offer no testimony favorable to the defense, then the defendant’s conviction must be affirmed. A contrary finding requires reversal and a new trial.
1. There is no merit to the defendant’s claim that the double jeopardy prohibition was violated when he was tried for the instant offense after $874.84 was taken from his prisoner account pursuant to a civil forfeiture action based on the same offense.
2. The court erroneously determined that the defendant was required to demonstrate an actual, rather than a possible, need for the confidential informant’s testimony before an in camera hearing to determine if the informant could offer testimony that would be helpful to the defendant would be deemed appropriate. The matter must be remanded for the court to conduct an in camera hearing.
3. The defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
4. There was sufficient evidence of intent. Specific intent is not an element of the offense.
Affirmed and remanded.
A holding by a majority of the panel was not reached with regard to an issue raised by the defendant concerning the use in his trial of evidence of admissions the defendant had made during prison administrative disciplinary proceedings regarding the same offense.
Sawyer, J., stated that the issue was not preserved for appellate review, does not present an important constitutional issue that is decisive of the outcome, and should not be reviewed.
Markman, X, concurring in part and dissenting in part, stated that the issue should be addressed. The current prison disciplinary proceeding structures do not compel inmates to testify in disciplinary proceedings and, therefore, the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination is not implicated by the use of such testimony in a subsequent criminal proceeding. Because People v Carr, 149 Mich App 653 (1986), found that prison inmates were compelled to speak at prison disciplinary proceedings, Carr was wrongly decided regarding this issue and should not be followed. It is not clear whether the defendant was advised at the disciplinary hearing that his testimony would not be admissible against him at a subsequent criminal trial on the underlying offense, as required by Carr. The matter should be remanded to determine whether the defendant was so advised. If he was so advised, and his testimony was in fact later used against him, elementary notions of due process would require that his conviction should be reversed, independent of any Fifth Amendment concerns. If he was not so advised, reversal of the conviction should not be required because the analysis of the Fifth Amendment issue in Carr was wrong.
O’Connell, P.X, dissenting, stated that the issue is an important constitutional issue that is decisive of the outcome and should be reviewed. The holding in Carr that any evidence derived from testimony at a disciplinary hearing is inadmissible at subsequent criminal proceedings regarding the underlying charge, save for impeachment or rebuttal, is outcome determinative of the case. The conviction should be reversed.
1. Criminal Law — Evidence — Confidential Informants.
A court considering a defendant’s request that the prosecution be ordered to identify a confidential informant and make the informant available for examination at trial should conduct an in camera hearing and interview the informant outside the defendant’s presence, thereby protecting the informant’s anonymity, in order to determine if the informant could offer testimony that would be helpful to the defendant where the defendant demonstrates a possible need for the informant's testimony.
2. Criminal Law — Prisoners in Possession of Controlled Substances — Specific Intent.
Specific intent is not an element of the offense of being a prisoner in possession of a controlled substance (MCL 800.281[4]; MSA 28.1621[4]).
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, Patrick M. Shannon, Prosecuting Attorney, and Jonathan C. Pierce, Assistant Attorney General, for the people.
John W. Groves, for the defendant on appeal.
Before: O’Connell, P.J., and Sawyer and Markman, JJ.

Opinion:
Sawyer, J.
Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of being a prisoner in possession of a controlled substance, MCL 800.281(4); MSA 28.1621(4), and a third-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.11; MSA 28.1083. This case arose after defendant was found in possession of marijuana while an inmate at the Kin-ross Correctional Facility in Kincheloe, Michigan. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm and remand for the trial court to conduct an in camera hearing in order to determine whether the confidential informant who told the prison guards that defendant was in possession of marijuana could provide testimony helpful to defendant.
Defendant first argues that his criminal conviction must be reversed because it violated his right to be free from double jeopardy, given that he had been already punished for this incident when $874.84 was taken from his prisoner account pursuant to a civil forfeiture action. We disagree. This Court recently addressed this issue in People v Acoff, 220 Mich App 396; 559 NW2d 103 (1996). Defendant has not provided the transcript of the civil forfeiture proceeding or any proof that the forfeiture was so punitive in purpose or effect that it was equivalent to a criminal proceeding. Therefore, defendant's double jeopardy claim is without merit. Id.
Defendant next argues that his rights to due process and a fair trial were denied where the trial court refused defendant's request that the prosecution be ordered to identify and make available for examination at trial the confidential informant who told the prison guards that defendant was in possession of marijuana. A confidential informant advised Captain Michael Zimmerman that defendant would be in possession of marijuana on the day he was detained and found in possession of marijuana. Defendant claimed that he did not know that the box he was given contained marijuana. He believed he had been set up by other inmates. Defendant asked that the informant be produced in hopes of eliciting testimony that would corroborate this defense theory.
When a defendant requests the production of a confidential informant, the court should conduct an in camera hearing and interview the informant outside the defendant's presence, thereby protecting the informant's anonymity, in order to determine if the informant could offer testimony that would be helpful to the defendant. People v Underwood, 447 Mich 695, 706; 526 NW2d 903 (1994); People v Stander, 73 Mich App 617, 622-623; 251 NW2d 258 (1977). The trial court erroneously determined that defendant was required to demonstrate an actual, rather than possible, need for the informant's testimony before the in camera hearing would be deemed appropriate. Consequently, we remand for the court to conduct this in camera hearing. If the trial court finds that the informant could offer no testimony favorable to the defense, then defendant's conviction shall be affirmed. A contrary finding shall require reversal and a new trial. Stander, at 623.
Defendant next argues that evidence of his admission regarding the instant offense, made at an administrative disciplinary proceeding, was erroneously admitted at trial because he was not given Miranda warnings before the hearing at which he made this statement. However, defendant has failed to preserve this issue because he neither objected at trial nor raised the issue in his motion for a new trial. Furthermore, I am not persuaded that this presents an important constitutional issue that is decisive of the outcome. People v Newcomb, 190 Mich App 424, 431; 476 NW2d 749 (1991). Accordingly, I would decline to review the issue.
Defendant next argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel where his trial counsel elicited character evidence suggesting that defendant was a known drug dealer. We disagree. Defendant has not overcome the presumption that his trial counsel's actions were consistent with a trial strategy. Also, where there was overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, it cannot be said that there is a reasonable probability that the jury would have concluded differently. Thus, there was no ineffective assistance. People v Stanaway, 446 Mich 643, 687-688; 521 NW2d 557 (1994).
Finally, defendant argues that the crime of being a prisoner in possession of a controlled substance requires a showing of specific intent and that the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to support a jury finding on this element. We disagree. Specific intent is not an element of this offense. People v Norman, 176 Mich App 271, 274-275; 438 NW2d 895 (1989). Further, prosecution witnesses testified that defendant admitted knowing he was in possession of marijuana. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence of intent.
Affirmed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436; 86 S Ct 1602; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966).