Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v BRADLEY STEVEN CAREY, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED September 16, 2008

No. 279270 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 2006-211450-FH

Before: Whitbeck, P.J., and Bandstra and Donofrio, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right his jury trial convictions for three counts of felonious assault, MCL 750.82, possession of less than 25 grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(v), and four counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed a line of questioning briefly referencing defendant's involvement in a prior bank robbery for a limited purpose, we affirm. This appeal has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). This case stems from police execution of a search warrant at defendant's apartment. When police officers arrived at defendant's apartment to execute the search warrant, they saw someone peering at them from behind window blinds. Police forced entry into the apartment using a ram. Police testified that as they entered, they informed the occupants of their identity as police officers, and that they had a warrant to search the home. One officer saw defendant dive behind a love seat. At trial, officers testified that defendant then stood up with a gun and pointed it in the officers' direction. The officers told defendant to drop the gun as they moved into the apartment. One officer fired at defendant, striking him. Defendant was taken to the hospital for treatment. During a search of the apartment, the police discovered cocaine in a pill bottle in one of defendant's shirts in a closet. Defendant maintained that he did not know that the persons were police officers when they entered his apartment. He claimed that he did not see any police identification on their assault uniforms, and, that while they told him to drop his gun, they did not verbally inform him of their identity. Shortly before trial in this case, defendant was convicted of a bank robbery. Prior to trial, defense counsel moved to prevent the prosecutor from introducing evidence of this conviction, -1-


arguing that the time for defendant's appeal had not yet run, and that the introduction of this conviction would have a chilling effect on defendant's ability to testify. The prosecution argued that defendant likely would refute the officers' version of the events, and that the prosecution would wish to impeach defendant's credibility with this conviction. After analyzing the conviction under MRE 609, the trial court fond that because the prior conviction and the charged crimes in this case were both violent offenses, it would be more prejudicial than probative to allow the prosecution to introduce evidence of the prior conviction. However, defense counsel subsequently questioned a number of witnesses about defendant's stated defense that he thought the police officers were members of the Russian mafia, or other criminals, and that he was only trying to defend himself.1 Prior to defendant's testimony, the prosecutor moved the court to revisit its earlier ruling, indicating that it wanted to offer an alternative theory to rebut defendant's defense; i.e., that defendant planned to fire at the officers because he thought they were looking for him for the purpose of arresting him for the unarmed robbery. The trial court agreed to allow the questioning about the prior conviction for this limited purpose. During cross-examination, the prosecutor attempted to impeach defendant concerning his alleged belief that the police were criminals invading his home: Q. You knew that police officers had something else in mind when they were

Download PEOPLE OF MI V BRADLEY STEVEN CAREY.pdf

Michigan Law