People v. Ray
Decision Date | 14 November 1991 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 122877 |
Citation | 191 Mich.App. 706,479 N.W.2d 1 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sherman Osborne RAY, Defendant-Appellant. 191 Mich.App. 706, 479 N.W.2d 1 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Gay Secor Hardy, Sol. Gen., Michael D. Thomas, Pros. Atty., and Kay F. Pearson, Chief Appellate Atty., for the People.
Douglas R. Mullkoff, Ann Arbor, for defendant-appellant on appeal.
[191 MICHAPP 707] Before SHEPHERD, P.J., and WAHLS and BURNS, * JJ.
On August 4, 1989, defendant was convicted of possession with intent to deliver less than fifty grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv); MSA 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(iv), and was thereafter sentenced to three to twenty years in prison. He now appeals his conviction as of right. We affirm.
We will first address defendant's contention that the trial court erred in qualifying Officer Rosenstangel as an expert witness and in permitting him to testify regarding the significance of the quantity and division of the drugs allegedly found on defendant as they related to the issue of intent to deliver.
The determination regarding the qualification of an expert and the admissibility of expert testimony is within the trial court's discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. People v. Beckley, 434 Mich. 691, 711, 456 N.W.2d 391 (1990). Under MRE 702, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony, the witness must be an expert, there must be facts in evidence that require or are subject to examination and analysis by a competent expert, and there must be knowledge in a particular area that belongs more to an expert than an ordinary person. Id. The critical inquiry, however, is whether such testimony will aid the factfinder in making the ultimate decision in the case. People v. Smith, 425 Mich. 98, 105, 387 N.W.2d 814 (1986). Furthermore, expert opinion testimony will not be excluded simply because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. Id., at 106, 387 N.W.2d 814.
In the present matter, Officer Rosenstangel was [191 MICHAPP 708] properly qualified as an expert on the basis of his training and experience with observing drug use and drug trafficking. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting his expert testimony. Rosenstangel testified that the quantity of crack cocaine found in defendant's possession, the fact that the rocks of crack cocaine were evenly cut, and the selling price of crack cocaine on the street clearly indicated that defendant intended to sell the drugs and not simply use the crack cocaine for personal consumption. Such information was not within the knowledge of a layman, and Rosenstangel's testimony would have aided the jury in determining defendant's intent and, thus, his guilt of the charged offense. The fact that the testimony did embrace the ultimate issue of intent to deliver did not render the evidence inadmissible. Smith, supra.
Defendant next contends that there was insufficient evidence presented of intent to deliver and therefore his conviction should be reversed. We disa...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Griffin
...to both, which was not within the knowledge of a layperson, aided the jury in resolving those questions. See People v. Ray, 191 Mich.App. 706, 708, 479 N.W.2d 1 (1991). Thus the testimony was not improper drug profile evidence, but rather proper expert testimony concerning material In regar......
-
People v. Catanzarite
...of the cocaine involved, a reasonable inference can also be drawn that defendant intended to sell the cocaine. People v. Ray, 191 Mich.App. 706, 708, 479 N.W.2d 1 (1991). Therefore, the evidence was sufficient to support his Next, defendant claims that the trial court erred in failing to ad......
-
People v. Lueth
...in light of the fact that this information arguably fell outside the realm of knowledge of the average juror. People v. Ray, 191 Mich.App. 706, 707, 479 N.W.2d 1 (1991). Defendant also claims that Jewell's testimony improperly included his conclusion that defendant had violated the racing s......
-
People v. Williams, Docket Nos. 130174
...and [that] there ... be knowledge in a particular area that belongs more to an expert than an ordinary person." People v. Ray, 191 Mich.App. 706, 707, 479 N.W.2d 1 (1991). Admissibility is governed by a three-part test: (1) the expert must be qualified; (2) the evidence must serve to give t......