People v. Schultz

Decision Date08 May 2008
Docket NumberDocket No. 272219.
Citation278 Mich. App. 776,754 N.W.2d 925
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gordon Devere SCHULTZ, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Michael A. Cox, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, Michael D. Carpenter, Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael T. Garner, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

State Appellate Defender (by Randy E. Davidson), for the defendant.

Before: WILDER, P.J., and O'CONNELL and WHITBECK, JJ.

O'CONNELL, J.

Defendant appeals as of right his conviction of domestic violence, third offense, MCL 750.81(4), following a jury trial. Defendant was also sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.12, to 46 to 180 months' imprisonment. We affirm.

This case arose after the complainant, defendant's live-in girlfriend, walked in on defendant while he was on the phone. She overheard him wind up the conversation with a glib remark that seriously impeached his loyalty to her. An argument with the complainant ensued. It moved outside, and defendant ultimately resolved it by slapping the complainant, yanking her hair, and shoving her to the ground. When the police arrived, they saw that the complainant had an abrasion on her forehead and bruises on her back and neck. Some of the bruising was older because this was not the first time defendant resorted to violence as a means of managing his domestic affairs. The day before, defendant had beaten the complainant with a belt and shoved her onto a bed and into a heat register.

Defendant's sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred by allowing the prosecutor to introduce defendant's guilty plea from an earlier case. The plea involved previous physical abuse of the complainant that occurred about eighteen months before the events at issue at trial, and defendant's trial counsel specifically denied that he had any objection to the jury's hearing about the plea. Now defendant argues that the legal basis for the prosecutor presenting defendant's plea, MCL 768.27b, infringes on our Supreme Court's constitutional authority to manage the practice and procedure of the courts of this state. He further argues that the statute altered the evidence that could substantiate the prosecutor's claim, so it represents an illicit ex post facto law. Defendant's lack of objection failed to preserve his constitutional challenges in the trial court, so we will not reverse his conviction unless we find plain error that affected his substantial rights. People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750, 763-764, 597 N.W.2d 130 (1999).

According to MCL 768.27b(1), "in a criminal action in which the defendant is accused of an offense involving domestic violence, evidence of the defendant's commission of other acts of domestic violence is admissible for any purpose for which it is relevant, if it is not otherwise excluded under Michigan rule of evidence 403." This statute stands in stark contrast to MRE 404(b)(1), which requires a proponent to offer more than the transparency of a person's character as justification for admitting evidence of other crimes or wrongs.

This case is ultimately controlled by our analysis in People v. Pattison, 276 Mich. App. 613, 741 N.W.2d 558 (2007). Regarding defendant's ex post facto argument, our Legislature's adoption of MCL 768.27b did not "lower the quantum of proof or value of the evidence needed to convict a defendant." See Pattison, supra at 619, 741 N.W.2d 558. The statute does not permit conviction on less evidence or evidence of a lesser quality. See id. at 618, 741 N.W.2d 558. As with the sister statute analyzed in Pattison, MCL 768.27b did not change the burden of proof necessary to establish the crime, ease the presumption of innocence, or downgrade the type of evidence necessary to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Buie v. Rivard
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • May 17, 2016
    ...280 Mich. App. 53, 55-56, 761 N.W.2d 466 (2008), rev'd on other grounds 486 Mich. 60, 781 N.W.2d 784 (2010); People v. Schultz, 278 Mich. App. 776, 778-779, 754 N.W.2d 925 (2008). Under this Court's previous holdings, defendant's claim is meritless. Pattison, 276 Mich. App. at 619, 741 N.W.......
  • People v. Buie
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • October 2, 2012
    ...280 Mich.App. 53, 55–56, 761 N.W.2d 466 (2008), rev'd on other grounds 486 Mich. 60, 781 N.W.2d 784 (2010); People v. Schultz, 278 Mich.App. 776, 778–779, 754 N.W.2d 925 (2008). Under this Court's previous holdings, defendant's claim is meritless. Pattison, 276 Mich.App. at 619, 741 N.W.2d ......
  • People v. Propp
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • October 3, 2019
    ...to convict a defendant’ " and "does not permit conviction on less evidence or evidence of a lesser quality. " People v. Schultz , 278 Mich. App. 776, 778, 754 N.W.2d 925 (2008) (emphasis added), quoting People v. Pattison , 276 Mich. App. 613, 619, 741 N.W.2d 558 (2007). As the Schultz Cour......
  • Wynn v. Campbell, Case No. 17-10204
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • November 5, 2019
    ...288 Mich. App. 213, 219-20, 792 N.W.2d 776, 780 (2010) (interpreting Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.27b and citing People v. Schultz, 278 Mich. App. 776, 778, 754 N.W.2d 925 (2008)). The disputed evidence in Petitioner's case was relevant and probative. It showed why the complainant was afraid of P......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT