People v. Stewart

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Stewart

500 N.W.2d 756, 199 Mich. App. 199

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 5, 1993

DocketDocket 129343

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 500 N.W.2d 756 (People v. Stewart) 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. Stewart, 500 N.W.2d 756, 199 Mich. App. 199 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinions

[200]*200Michael J. Kelly, J.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520d; MSA 28.788(4), and was sentenced thereafter to five to fifteen years’ imprisonment. He now appeals as of right. We affirm.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant’s motion for a mistrial. People v Gonzales, 193 Mich App 263, 265-267; 483 NW2d 458 (1992). Defendant was offered the opportunity to have any error arising out of the testimony of the arresting officer cured by an instruction to the jury. Defendant did not take advantage of this offer. Further, any error that occurred when the officer made an innocuous reference to another criminal act was not so prejudicial as to deny defendant a fair trial or to amount to a miscarriage of justice.

Affirmed.

Wahls, P.J., concurred.

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

[200]*200Michael J. Kelly, J.

Defendant was convicted by a jury of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520d; MSA 28.788(4), and was sentenced thereafter to five to fifteen years’ imprisonment. He now appeals as of right. We affirm.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant’s motion for a mistrial. People v Gonzales, 193 Mich App 263, 265-267; 483 NW2d 458 (1992). Defendant was offered the opportunity to have any error arising out of the testimony of the arresting officer cured by an instruction to the jury. Defendant did not take advantage of this offer. Further, any error that occurred when the officer made an innocuous reference to another criminal act was not so prejudicial as to deny defendant a fair trial or to amount to a miscarriage of justice.

Affirmed.

Wahls, P.J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

500 N.W.2d 756, 199 Mich. App. 199, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stewart-michctapp-1993.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack