People v. Miller
| Decision Date | 01 March 1993 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 130534 |
| Citation | 499 N.W.2d 373,198 Mich.App. 494 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlen Benton MILLER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Casey, Sol. Gen., Carl J. Marlinga, Pros. Atty., Robert J. Berlin, Chief Appellate Lawyer, and Richard J. Goodman, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
Robert H. Roether, Farmington Hills, for defendant-appellant.
Before SHEPHERD, P.J., and BRENNAN and LEOPOLD P. BORRELLO, * JJ.
Defendant was originally charged with second-degree murder, M.C.L. Sec. 750.317; M.S.A. Sec. 28.549, for the death of Lisa Marie Eagling as a result of injuries sustained in an automobile collision on March 23, 1989. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter, M.C.L. Sec. 750.321; M.S.A. Sec. 28.553, and sentenced to a prison term of eight to fifteen years. Defendant now appeals as of right, and we affirm.
Defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting under MRE 404(b) testimony regarding defendant's reckless driving on prior occasions. We disagree.
We will find an abuse of discretion only if an unprejudiced person, considering the facts upon which the trial court made its decision, would conclude that there was no justification for the ruling made. People v. Rockwell, 188 Mich.App. 405, 410, 470 N.W.2d 673 (1991).
MRE 404(b) provides:
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, scheme, plan, or system in doing an act, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident when the same is material, whether such other crimes, wrongs, or acts are contemporaneous with, or prior or subsequent to the conduct at issue in the case.
Evidence of a prior similar act may be admitted under MRE 404(b) where: (1) there is substantial evidence that the defendant committed the similar act; (2) there is some special quality of the act that tends to prove the defendant's identity or the motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, scheme, plan, or system, and opportunity, preparation, and knowledge; (3) one or more of these factors are material to the defendant's guilt of the charged offense; and (4) the probative value of the evidence sought to be introduced is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. People v. Golochowicz, 413 Mich 298, 307-309, 319 N.W.2d 518 (1982); see also People v. Engelman, 434 Mich. 204, 453 N.W.2d 656 (1990).
In the case at bar, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing evidence of prior occasions when defendant drove recklessly while intoxicated. First, there was substantial evidence that defendant committed the prior acts. Debra Prewitt testified about six prior occasions when defendant drove his car recklessly after arguing with Lisa Eagling in order to punish or intimidate her.
Second, the prior acts were introduced by the prosecutor to show that defendant drove recklessly on the night of March 23, 1989, because he was angry with Lisa Eagling and wanted to punish her. After arguing with Lisa because she wanted to leave a party, defendant, though intoxicated, took her home, speeding down Nine Mile Road in Warren, straddling lanes, and running red lights before colliding with another vehicle that was lawfully proceeding through an intersection.
Furthermore, defendant's reckless driving on previous occasions was material under the third prong of the Golochowicz test in showing that defendant was guilty of second-degree murder. Under MRE 404(b), the word "material" means that one of the listed factors in the rule has been made an issue in the case by one of the parties or is a contested element of the offense or of the defense. In this case, the prosecutor was required to prove intent and the defendant raised lack of intent as a defense. The state of mind of the defendant was, therefore, material under MRE 404(b).
To establish the elements of second-degree murder, the prosecution must show "malice," a mental state consisting of "the intent to kill, to cause...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Aaron L.
...37 Mass.App. 727, 732-33, 643 N.E.2d 62 (1994), rev'd on other grounds, 422 Mass. 740, 665 N.E.2d 976 (1996); People v. Miller, 198 Mich.App. 494, 496, 499 N.W.2d 373 (1993); Lester v. State, 692 So.2d 755, 779 (Miss.1997); State v. Bickham, 917 S.W.2d 197, 198-99 (Mo.App.1996); State v. Pa......
-
People v. Catanzarite
...N.W.2d 114 (1993). The admissibility of other bad-acts evidence is a matter within the trial court's discretion. People v. Miller, 198 Mich.App. 494, 495, 499 N.W.2d 373 (1993). This Court has previously held that MRE 404(b), now 404(b)(1), applies to the admissibility of evidence of other ......
-
Phillips v. Deihm
...which the trial court made its decision, would conclude that there was no justification for the ruling made. People v. Miller, 198 Mich.App. 494, 495, 499 N.W.2d 373 (1993). Here, plaintiff has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to Plaintiff a......
-
Stewart v. Rapelje
...was sufficient to establish malice on part of defendant, and thus to support charge for second degree murder); People v. Miller, 198 Mich.App. 494, 498; 499 N.W.2d 373 (1993)(evidence supported conviction for second-degree murder; after arguing with passenger, who was his girlfriend, becaus......