 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Holbrook12/13/2002
UNPUBLISHED
Defendant appeals as of right from his conviction for kidnapping, MCL 750.349, two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct committed during the course of a felony, MCL 750.520b(1)(c), and two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct resulting in personal injury , MCL 750.520b(1)(f). Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the kidnapping conviction, as well as to a concurrent sentence of 46 to 69 years imprisonment for the criminal sexual conduct convictions. Defendant's sentences were enhanced to reflect his status as a habitual offender (third conviction), pursuant to MCL 769.11. We affirm.
I. Facts
Late in the evening on November 15, 1998, the victim was driving to her father's home when defendant swerved in front of her with his car, causing an accident. When the victim got out of the car to investigate the damage, defendant knocked her to the ground and began choking her. She attempted to hit him with her flashlight, but he took the flashlight away from her and hit her with it approximately six times. Defendant continued to hold onto her throat and began punching her stomach. Finally, defendant picked her up, put her in his truck, drove to a wooded area and then forced her to have sex with him. The victim testified that she was afraid that defendant would kill her since he was repeating "I know what I got to do," and so she pleaded with him to let her see her baby. Defendant drove her out of the woods and let her out of the vehicle at an apartment complex, where she was able to get help contacting the police, her husband, and her father.
The victim was taken to the hospital where some of her articles of clothing were collected as evidence. In addition, a rape examination was performed which included the drawing of a blood sample. The victim was interviewed at the hospital to obtain a description of the attacker. Based on the description she provided, a composite drawing was prepared. Several days later at the sheriff's department, the victim provided additional information to the detective in charge of the case and another composite drawing was prepared.
On April 20, 1999, the victim was shown a photographic array by the detective in charge that contained pictures of individuals resembling the composite drawing. Defendant's photo was included in the array, however, the victim was unable to identify an assailant. On April 24, 1999, pursuant to a court order, defendant provided a blood sample to the police. Subsequently, the DNA profiles of defendant and the victim were compiled from their respective blood samples, and state police crime lab scientists concluded that the DNA profiles obtained from the victim's clothing and her rape examination matched the DNA profiles of both the victim and defendant.
Subsequently defendant was arrested and charged as noted above. After defendant's arrest, the victim was advised by the police that a suspect was in custody who was a "positive match." The victim asked what this meant and was told that defendant had been identified and arrested because his DNA profile matched the DNA evidence obtained from the victim during the rape examination.
At the preliminary examination in September 1999, defendant, who was wearing jail clothing and shackles, was identified by the victim as her assailant. On cross examination, the victim stated that she had been unable to identify defendant in the photo array because she had felt rushed when examining the photos. Defense counsel moved that the identification testimony be suppressed or, in the alternative, that the trial court conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the admissibility of the identification evidence.
Page 1 2 3 4 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|