Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v ANDREW MICHAEL OUELLETTE, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED June 20, 2006

No. 261602 Monroe Circuit Court LC No. 04-033818-FC

Before: Cooper, P.J., and Neff and Borrello, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant was convicted of receiving, possessing, concealing, or aiding in the concealment of stolen property worth $20,000 or more, MCL 750.535(2)(a). He was sentenced, as a fourth habitual offender, MCL 769.12, to 10 to 25 years in prison for his conviction. He appeals as of right. We affirm. In early May of 2004, four houses in the Monroe area were broken into, and jewelry was stolen from each. On May 11, 2004, Derek Cole, then manager of Donovan's Pub, a bar connected to the Travel Inn in Monroe,1 contacted the police because he believed that defendant and his friend Marc Sanders were using counterfeit money in the bar. Cole testified at trial that the police "took them [Sanders and defendant] out of the bar," and added that it later turned out the money was not counterfeit. Detective Mark Spreeman of the Monroe Police Department testified at the preliminary examination that he was investigating the Monroe break-ins and had made it known to other officers and agencies in the area that he was looking for suspects possibly selling jewelry when, on May 12, a fellow officer informed him that two men who had been arrested for possession of a stolen car2 and were in custody in the county jail were also

1

Bharti Patel, part owner of the Travel Inn, stated that room 117 of her hotel was registered to Sanders from May 5, 2004, to May 12, 2004, and that she believed a second person was staying there with Sanders because two magnetic keys were given for the room. Mark McNeil, then a desk clerk at the Travel Inn, testified that he checked defendant and Sanders into room 117.

We have reviewed the lower court record thoroughly, and other than this testimony from Officer Spreeman, we have found nothing that explains why defendant had been arrested. There is no indication of whether both defendant and Sanders were in possession of a stolen car, whether they were arrested on an outstanding warrant, or what the facts were that led both
(continued...)

2

-1-


rumored to have been selling jewelry. Detective Spreeman went to the county jail with a photograph of a shoeprint impression taken at the scene of one of the break-ins, and compared it to the footwear taken from Sanders and defendant at the time of their arrest. Spreeman testified at the preliminary examination that based on similarities between the photographed print and Sanders's shoe,3 and the Travel Inn hotel keys taken from both suspects when they were taken into custody, he contacted the prosecutor to determine whether a search warrant was needed for the Travel Inn hotel room shared by the suspects. Spreeman testified that the prosecutor informed him it was not required after checkout time on the last day paid for by the room's occupants. Spreeman and another officer then went to the Travel Inn and waited until checkout time so that defendant and Sanders would no longer have an expectation of privacy in the hotel room, then got Patel's consent and searched room 117. During the search, the officers found some items of jewelry and a pawn slip from a Detroit jewelry store. The items of jewelry were later identified by various victims of the break-ins as property stolen from their homes. Several employees of the hotel and the bar testified that they either saw defendant and Sanders attempting to sell jewelry, or that they were solicited to purchase jewelry themselves. One employee noted that an unidentified patron had told her defendant tried to sell her a 14-karat gold necklace for only $40. Cole and Matthew Bogucki, a Travel Inn employee, searched room 117 after the police searched it. They found some items of jewelry and turned them over to the police; these items were also later identified as stolen in the Monroe break-ins. Defendant first argues that he was denied a fair trial when the prosecution was allowed to present "overwhelming and confusing evidence" of "other acts" under MRE 404(b). We disagree. This Court reviews a trial court's decision to admit evidence for an abuse of discretion; however, when the trial court's decision involves a preliminary question of law, such as whether a rule of evidence, statute, or constitutional provision precludes the admission of evidence, a de novo standard of review is used. People v Katt, 468 Mich 272, 278; 662 NW2d 12 (2003). When such preliminary questions are at issue, we will find an abuse of discretion when a trial court admits evidence that is inadmissible as a matter of law. Id. MRE 404(b)(1) provides:

(...continued)

defendant and Sanders to be in custody when the hotel room was searched. We inquired during oral argument as to why defendant had been arrested, and received no further explanation. The lack of explanation or further mention of the stolen car referenced by Officer Spreeman gives us pause as to whether defendant's arrest was pretextual. Given that defense counsel did not argue the point and no evidence was presented to rebut the validity of the arrest, our ruling in this matter stands. Defense counsel objected to this testimony at the preliminary examination, arguing lack of qualification as an expert witness, but the judge ruled that "for purpose of preliminary examination I believe a witness can at least provide testimony of that nature and I think it's

Download PEOPLE OF MI V ANDREW MICHAEL OUELLETTE.pdf

Michigan Law