People v. Williams1/20/2005
UNPUBLISHED
Defendant appeals as of right from his jury trial convictions for seven counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC I), MCL 750.520b(1)(f), kidnapping, MCL 750.349, and extortion, MCL 750.213. Defendant was sentenced as an habitual offender, fourth offense, MCL 769.12, to 225 months' to 30 years' imprisonment for CSC I. Defendant was also sentenced to 225 months' to 30 years' imprisonment for his kidnapping and extortion convictions. All sentences are to run concurrently. Although the challenged evidence, post-rape miscarriage, was errantly admitted at trial, because defendant has not shown that he is actually innocent, or that the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings, we affirm.
Defendant argues that he was denied a fair trial when the prosecution elicited evidence from the victim that she suffered a miscarriage subsequent to the attack. To preserve an evidentiary issue for review, a party opposing the admission of evidence must object at trial and specify the same ground for objection which it asserts on appeal. MRE 103(a)(1), People v Grant, 445 Mich 535, 545, 553; 520 NW2d 123 (1994); People v Griffin, 235 Mich App 27, 44; 597 NW2d 176 (1999). Because defendant failed to raise a specific and timely objection to the admission of this evidence, we review this unpreserved claim for plain error affecting defendant's substantial rights, i.e., the error was outcome determinative. People v Knox, 469 Mich 502, 508; 674 NW2d 366 (2004); People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 761-764; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). A reviewing court should reverse only if the defendant is actually innocent or the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Carines, supra, at 763-764, 774.
The decision to admit evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion. People v Starr, 457 Mich 490, 494; 577 NW2d 673 (1998). An abuse of discretion is found only if an unprejudiced person, considering the facts on which the trial court acted, would say that there was no justification or excuse for the ruling made, People v Snider, 239 Mich App 393, 419; 608 NW2d 502 (2000); or the result is so palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it evidences a perversity of will, a defiance of judgment, or the exercise of passion or bias. People v Hine, 467 Mich 242, 250; 650 NW2d 659 (2002). A decision on a close evidentiary question ordinarily cannot be an abuse of discretion. People v Sabin (After Remand), 463 Mich 43, 67; 614 NW2d 888 (2000). Moreover, an evidentiary error does not merit reversal in a criminal case, unless, after an examination of the entire cause, it affirmatively appears that it is more probable than not that the error was outcome determinative. People v Smith, 243 Mich App 657, 680; 625 NW2d 46 (2000).
On appeal, defendant specifically argues that the testimony regarding the victim's miscarriage subsequent to the rape impermissibly raised an inference that defendant's conduct caused the miscarriage because the prosecutor did not present any evidence causally linking the two events. To establish a charge of CSC I, the prosecution must show that defendant caused personal injury to the victim while using force or coercion to accomplish sexual penetration. MCL 750.520b(1)(f). "Personal injury" is defined as "bodily injury, disfigurement, mental anguish, chronic pain, pregnancy, disease, or loss of impairment of a sexual or productive organ." MCL 750.520a(l). Mental anguish means extreme or excruciating pain, distress, or suffering of the mind either at the time of the offense, or after if it re
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|