 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Goodsell3/25/2003
nsupported by the evidence. . . ." However, in context, see McElhaney, supra at 283, the prosecutor's argument in this case was proper. Indeed, the prosecutor was merely emphasizing that Van Meter never explicitly stated that she consented to the penetrations. No clear or obvious error occurred. Carines, supra at 763.
Defendant additionally contends that the prosecutor erred by playing the admitted audiotapes during closing arguments and by stating:
Think about the context of the past. Think about the context of the demeaning her family. Think about the context of demeaning her. Think about the context of the lies that you've heard. . . . When you think about the past relationship, think about the demeaning nature of the language he uses. Think of the emotional manipulation that he's used. Think about whether Mary pushed him that half inch. Think about how much he loved her and how much she consented. Think about how he behaved. . . .
When you think about consent and the evidence of the past relationship, remember he's on his way down and convict him of CSC in the first on two counts.
We discern no clear or obvious error with regard to the prosecutor's statements or with regard to the playing of the audiotapes. Indeed, the prosecutor was simply using and properly commenting on evidence properly admitted in the case. Moreover, even if an error had occurred, we would conclude that it did not affect the outcome of the case. Accordingly, reversal is unwarranted. Id.
Defendant additionally argues that prosecutor erred by mentioning during closing arguments that the trial court had asked the jurors during voir dire whether "sexual assault remains a crime, even if the person would have consented without say force or coercion, would have consented without the knife, and even though they consented in the past?" Once again, we find no plain error requiring reversal under Carines. The prosecutor's comments were proper and did not likely affect the outcome of the case.
Finally, defendant claims that his convictions must be reversed because of cumulative error. "This Court reviews this issue to determine if the combination of alleged errors denied defendant a fair trial." People v Knapp, 244 Mich App 361, 387; 624 NW2d 227. " he effect of the errors must have been seriously prejudicial in order to warrant a finding that defendant was denied a fair trial." Id. at 388. We find no such prejudice.
Affirmed.
Daniel S. Owens
Michael J. Talbot
Patrick M. Meter
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|