People v. Therrien
| Decision Date | 20 December 1979 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 78-1673,1674 |
| Citation | 296 N.W.2d 8,97 Mich.App. 633 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Francis Ronald THERRIEN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
James R. Neuhard, State App. Defender, James Krogsrud, Asst. State App. Defender, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Michael W. LaBeau, Pros. Atty., William F. Lavoy, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before R. B. BURNS, P. J., and CAVANAGH and HOLBROOK, JJ.
Defendant was charged with one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, M.C.L. § 750.520b; M.S.A. § 28.788(2), and one count of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, M.C.L. § 750.520d; M.S.A. § 28.788(4). He was jury convicted of two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. Thereafter sentenced to 10 to 15 years imprisonment for each conviction, to be served concurrently, he now appeals as of right.
Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in admitting testimony which bolstered complainants' credibility. The testimony in question includes: 1) repeated affirmance on direct examination by complainants of the truth of their testimony; 2) testimony by a town constable that another unidentified person had contacted him regarding the charged offenses; 3) testimony by an investigating officer that the complainants' testimony at trial was consistent with their previous statements to him.
While defendant failed to preserve this issue for appeal by timely objection at trial, this Court will nevertheless consider manifest and serious error to prevent fundamental injustice even absent such objection. People v. Holmes, 292 Mich. 212, 290 N.W. 384 (1940); People v. Dorrikas, 354 Mich. 303, 92 N.W.2d 305 (1958); People v. Goodwin, 40 Mich.App. 709, 199 N.W.2d 552 (1972). Although we do not find any manifest or serious error in complainants' affirmance on direct examination of the truth of their testimony, we do find the constable's testimony to be hearsay. People v. Hallaway, 389 Mich. 265, 275, 205 N.W.2d 451 (1973). Moreover, since there was no claim of recent fabrication by defendant, allowing their credibility to be bolstered by their prior consistent statements was error. Brown v. People, 17 Mich. 429 (1868); Stewart v. People, 23 Mich. 63 (1871); People v. Purman, 216 Mich. 430, 185 N.W. 725 (1921); People v. Hallaway, supra; People v. Coles, 79 Mich.App. 255, 261 N.W.2d 280 (1977); People v. Harris, 86 Mich.App. 301, 272 N.W.2d 635 (1978). Since complainants' testimony was the sole evidence to establish that a crime had been committed, the bolstering testimony might well have tipped the scales, in the minds of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Williams
...reverse only if presented with manifest and serious error resulting in fundamental injustice. See, for example, People v. Therrien, 97 Mich.App. 633, 634, 296 N.W.2d 8 (1979). The prosecution has a duty to disclose promises made to obtain an accomplice's testimony. People v. Atkins, 397 Mic......
-
People v. Perkins
...bolster the credibility of the complainant by showing that her story had not varied from the time of the incident. People v. Therrien, 97 Mich.App. 633, 296 N.W.2d 8 (1979). The error of admitting the bolstering testimony was compounded by the prosecutor's argument to the jury. While addres......
-
People v. Bouknight
...will not review allegations of error based on comments not objected to at trial absent manifest and serious error. People v. Therrien, 97 Mich.App. 633, 296 N.W.2d 8 (1979); People v. Stinson, 88 Mich.App. 672, 278 N.W.2d 715 (1979). Defendant was not denied a fair and impartial trial becau......
-
State v. Barrett
...error under similar facts. See, e.g., People v. Sanders, 59 Ill.App.3d 650, 16 Ill.Dec. 814, 375 N.E.2d 921 (1978); People v. Therrien, 97 Mich.App. 633, 296 N.W.2d 8 (1979); Smith v. State, 100 Nev. 471, 686 P.2d 247 The State contends that any error here was harmless 1 in that Thomas' tes......