People of Michigan v. Jennifer Lee Witz

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED June 10, 2025 Plaintiff-Appellee, 3:19 PM v No. 372258 Baraga Circuit Court JENNIFER LEE WITZ, formerly known as LC No. 2023-001735-FH JENNIFER LEE KLOPSTEIN, Defendant-Appellant. Before: BOONSTRA, P.J., and REDFORD and MARIANI, JJ. PER CURIAM. In this interlocutory appeal, defendant, Jennifer Lee Witz, appeals by leave granted 1 the trial court’s order denying her motion to dismiss a charge against her. Defendant was charged with delivery of methamphetamine, MCL 333.7401(2)(b)(i). Defendant asserts she was entrapped. Defendant’s charge stems from her communications with an undercover officer and her attempted sale of methamphetamine to him. As part of their communications leading up to the attempted sale, the officer offered defendant a fabricated employment application. On appeal, defendant argues the trial court clearly erred by denying her motion to dismiss because the officer entrapped her into the attempted sale by the condition of the potential employment. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we disagree and affirm. I. BACKGROUND A detective deputy with the Upper Peninsula Substance Abuse Enforcement Team learned, from confidential informants and local law enforcement officers in Baraga County, that defendant and her partner had been selling methamphetamine out of their home. The officer used a social media application to communicate with defendant without telling her that he was a law enforcement officer. Once the officer verified that it was defendant using the account, he asked if 1 People v Witz, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered January 17, 2015 (Docket No. 372258) (O’BRIEN, J., would have denied leave to appeal). -1- she had any stimulants. In response, defendant told the officer that she could get methamphetamine. The officer asked to buy methamphetamine several times while they exchanged messages about defendant’s personal life and relationship issues. During their conversation, defendant mentioned that she quit her job several months earlier and was unemployed. The officer offered to give defendant a job application for his friend’s company, explaining that his friend was looking for someone with a driver’s license to haul materials and pick up supplies. The job and application were fictitious, but defendant believed they were real. The officer later offered to meet with defendant and give her an application, and he further asked defendant if she could bring any Adderall or methamphetamine to sell him. Defendant told the officer that she could sell him a gram of methamphetamine and arranged to meet with him within a couple hours. When defendant met with the officer and attempted to sell him the methamphetamine, the officer arrested her. Defendant’s conversation with the officer began less than 48 hours before her arrest, and the officer was not familiar with defendant outside of his investigation. After she was bound over, defendant moved to dismiss the charge on the basis that she had been entrapped. She argued that she was unemployed and that the officer engaged in reprehensible conduct by promising her help with finding a job in exchange for selling him drugs. The trial court found that defendant did not meet her burden to establish entrapment, noting that the officer was not the instigator of defendant’s criminal activity and the officer’s behavior was different from that in cases when entrapment did occur. The trial court emphasized that the officer did not appeal to defendant as a friend, he did not promise her employment, and he did not try to convince defendant that her conduct was legal. In light of the evidence presented at defendant’s preliminary examination and motion hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss on entrapment grounds. This appeal followed. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court has recently clarified the proper standard of review for claims of entrapment. “[F]actual findings are reviewed for clear error, questions of law are reviewed de novo, and the trial court’s ultimate ruling on the issue of entrapment is reviewed for clear error.” People v Jade, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2024) (Docket No. 365951); slip op at 6. Clear e