Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v CHARLES ALLEN MATHIS, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED May 22, 2008

No. 275655 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 06-010964-01

Before: Owens, P.J., and Meter and Schuette, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of felonious assault, MCL 750.82, felon in possession a firearm, MCL 750.224f, carrying a concealed weapon, MCL 750.227, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b. He was acquitted of two counts of assault with intent to rob while armed, MCL 750.89. He was sentenced, as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.12, to four to 20 years in prison for each felonious assault conviction, four to 20 years in prison for the felon in possession conviction, four to 15 years in prison for the carrying a concealed weapon conviction, and two years in prison for the felony-firearm conviction. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm. Defendant's codefendant, Mercedes Smoot, was charged with two counts of assault with intent to rob while armed, MCL 750.89, and two alternative counts of felonious assault, MCL 750.82. Smoot waived her right to a jury trial. The trial court granted Smoot's motion for a directed verdict at the close of the prosecutor's presentation of evidence. Afterward, Smoot testified as a witness on defendant's behalf. Defendant's first argument on appeal is that because the case against Smoot was dismissed after a motion for a directed verdict, the trial court erred when it gave the jury an "accomplice testimony" instruction with regard to Smoot. We disagree. "A trial court's decision whether to give an accomplice instruction is reviewed for an abuse of discretion." People v McGhee, 268 Mich App 600, 608; 709 NW2d 595 (2005). Moreover, this Court reviews jury instructions in their entirety to determine if there is error requiring reversal. People v McFall, 224 Mich App 403, 412; 569 NW2d 828 (1997). "Instructions that are somewhat imperfect are acceptable, as long as they fairly present to the jury the issues to be tried and sufficiently protect the rights of the defendant." People v Perry, 218 Mich App 520, 526; 554 NW2d 362 (1996). -1-


"The determination whether a jury instruction is applicable to the facts of the case lies within the sound discretion of the trial court." People v Heikkinen, 250 Mich App 322, 327; 646 NW2d 190 (2002). Additionally, accomplice credibility is a jury question. Id. Because an "accomplice may have a special interest in testifying . . . the testimony is suspect and must be received only with great care and caution." Id. A jury instruction regarding a "disputed accomplice"

Download PEOPLE OF MI V CHARLES ALLEN MATHIS.pdf

Michigan Law