People v. Puroll

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Puroll

489 N.W.2d 159, 195 Mich. App. 170

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 20, 1992

DocketDocket 133335

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 489 N.W.2d 159 (People v. Puroll) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Puroll, 489 N.W.2d 159, 195 Mich. App. 170 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinions

R. B. Burns, J.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of second-degree criminal sexual [171]*171conduct involving a member of his household. MCL 750.520c(l)(a); MSA 28.788(3)(l)(a). On September 10, 1990, defendant was sentenced to 2 Vi to 15 years’ imprisonment and now appeals as of right. We affirm.

Defendant first argues that the trial court erred in admitting the victim’s testimony regarding a subsequent sexual act between defendant and the victim. We disagree. People v DerMartzex, 390 Mich 410; 213 NW2d 97 (1973); People v Dreyer, 177 Mich App 735; 442 NW2d 764 (1989). Further, MRE 404(b) specifically provides for the admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts that occurred after the conduct at issue in the case. Contrast, however, FRE 404, which does not contain language specifically allowing for the admission of evidence of subsequent acts.

Defendant next argues that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury a limiting instruction regarding the evidence of the subsequent sexual act between defendant and the victim. However, defendant failed to request such a limiting instruction and failed to object to the. jury instructions as given. Therefore, this issue is not preserved for appellate review. People v Livery Clark, 172 Mich App 407, 417; 432 NW2d 726 (1988).

Affirmed.

Doctoroff, C.J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

R. B. Burns, J.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of second-degree criminal sexual [171]*171conduct involving a member of his household. MCL 750.520c(l)(a); MSA 28.788(3)(l)(a). On September 10, 1990, defendant was sentenced to 2 Vi to 15 years’ imprisonment and now appeals as of right. We affirm.

Defendant first argues that the trial court erred in admitting the victim’s testimony regarding a subsequent sexual act between defendant and the victim. We disagree. People v DerMartzex, 390 Mich 410; 213 NW2d 97 (1973); People v Dreyer, 177 Mich App 735; 442 NW2d 764 (1989). Further, MRE 404(b) specifically provides for the admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts that occurred after the conduct at issue in the case. Contrast, however, FRE 404, which does not contain language specifically allowing for the admission of evidence of subsequent acts.

Defendant next argues that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury a limiting instruction regarding the evidence of the subsequent sexual act between defendant and the victim. However, defendant failed to request such a limiting instruction and failed to object to the. jury instructions as given. Therefore, this issue is not preserved for appellate review. People v Livery Clark, 172 Mich App 407, 417; 432 NW2d 726 (1988).

Affirmed.

Doctoroff, C.J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

489 N.W.2d 159, 195 Mich. App. 170, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-puroll-michctapp-1992.

Opinions

R. B. Burns, J.

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack