Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, V DEON PATRICK DAWSON, a/k/a SAMUEL JACKSON, a/k/a KURTIS DIALS, a/k/a RONALD WRIGHT, a/k/a DION JACKSON, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED February 8, 2005

No. 248650 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 03-000809-01

Before: Wilder, P.J., and Hoekstra and Owens, JJ. PER CURIAM. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, MCL 750.316, possession of a firearm by person convicted of felony, MCL 750.224f, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b. Defendant was sentenced to life without parole for first-degree murder and 76 to 150 months imprisonment for the felon in possession conviction, MCL 769.12. Defendant's two-year sentence for felony-firearm runs consecutively to the other two convictions. We affirm. Defendant first argues that the trial court improperly interjected itself into the trial by making the following comments to the jury at the beginning of the second day of trial: And then we ended the day yesterday with Officer Kurtiss Staples who, when we concluded yesterday, read the statement made by the defendant into the record, which was Exhibit 6[,] which had been admitted. Defendant asserts that the comments by the trial judge undermined the credibility of defendant and influenced the jury in their determination of whether defendant actually made the statement to police. We disagree. To preserve the argument that the trial court made improper comments in the presence of the jury, a defendant must object at trial. People v Sardy, 216 Mich App 111, 117-118; 549 NW2d 23 (1996). In this case, defendant failed to object and has not preserved the issue. Unpreserved constitutional error is reviewed for plain error that affects the substantial rights of the defendant. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 761-765; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). It is well established that a trial court has wide, but not unlimited, discretion and power in the matter of trial conduct. People v Paquette, 214 Mich App 336, 340; 543 NW2d 342 (1995), -1-


citing People v Collier, 168 Mich App 687, 697; 425 NW2d 118 (1988). On appeal, portions of the record should not be taken out of context in order to show trial court bias against defendant; rather, the record should be reviewed as a whole. Id. "A trial court's conduct pierces the veil of judicial impartiality where its conduct or comments unduly influence the jury and thereby deprive the defendant of a fair and impartial trial." Id. In this case, defendant has taken the trial court's comments out of context, and when these comments are reviewed within the record as a whole, no error has occurred. The trial court plainly instructed the jury in regards to how it should determine the veracity of defendant's alleged statements to police: Now, the prosecution has introduced evidence of a statement that it claims the defendant made. Before you may consider such an out of court statement against the defendant, you must find that the defendant actually made the statement as it was given to you. If you find that the defendant did make the statement, you may give the statement whatever weight you think it deserves. [Emphasis added.] Thus, contrary to defendant's assertion, the trial court never asserted, as fact, that defendant actually made a statement to police, and we find no plain error. Defendant next argues the trial court improperly interjected itself into the proceedings by pointing out, in the presence of the jury, that certain questions by defense counsel were questions defendant had written out and directed defense counsel to ask. We disagree. At the conclusion of cross-examination of a prosecution witness, defense counsel informed the court that defendant was insisting that certain questions be posed to the witness. The trial court then allowed the witness to be recalled, and allowed defendant to direct defense counsel to ask certain questions that defendant had written out on paper. However, the trial court was concerned with establishing the propriety of defense counsel's questions: All right. I'll let you do it this one time and

Download PEOPLE OF MI V DEON PATRICK DAWSON.pdf

Michigan Law