Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v DIANA SKINNER, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED December 22, 2011

No. 301047 Ottawa Circuit Court LC No. 10-034472-FH

Before: HOEKSTRA, P.J., and K.F. KELLY and BECKERING, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right from her jury trial conviction for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence and/or operating a motor vehicle with an unlawful bodily alcohol level, third offense, MCL 257.625(1). We affirm. I. BASIC FACTS Carl Slenk was stopped at a four-way stop sign waiting for his turn to proceed through the intersection when his vehicle was bumped from behind by defendant's vehicle. Slenk walked to the driver's side of defendant's vehicle and asked her whether she realized that her vehicle hit his vehicle. Defendant appeared to be confused and just stated, "I have a child in the car." Slenk observed a child who was approximately two years old in the front seat. The child was not in a car seat nor restrained by a seat belt. Slenk told defendant that they should move off of the road to allow traffic to pass, and pulled his vehicle into a nearby parking lot. Instead of stopping, defendant left the scene. Slenk followed defendant less than one mile to her house and called 911. Police arrived within three minutes. Defendant did not immediately answer the officers' knocks on her front door. She eventually stuck her head out of an upstairs window and called down that she was changing a baby's diaper. The officers testified that defendant appeared confused and that her answers about the accident were vague. Her speech was thick-tongued and a little difficult to understand. The officers did not smell alcohol on her or see any alcohol containers. Defendant told the officers that she got out of work at 3:30 p.m., went with coworkers to the Village Inn Pizza Parlor where she drank five Peppermint Schnapps, and then picked up her daughter from daycare. Defendant told the officers that she thought that Slenk's vehicle backed up into her. Defendant's breath test was a .24. -1-

Defendant testified that after leaving work at approximately 3:30 p.m., she picked up her daughter from daycare, went to McDonald's to get her daughter food, and then stopped by her husband's work to see him. After leaving her husband's work, her daughter, who was in a car seat in the backseat, climbed out of the car seat, then climbed into the front seat. Defendant was trying to hold her daughter in the front seat when she accidentally bumped the vehicle in front of her. Slenk was yelling at her at the scene and defendant did not want to expose her daughter to that so she drove the short distance home in order to call the police. Slenk approached her in the driveway and started yelling at her again, so defendant took the child inside. Defendant changed her daughter's diaper and proceeded to drink 15 ounces of her husband's rum. She did not immediately respond to the knocks at the door because she believed it was Slenk. Because the officers sarcastically asked her where she had been before the accident, she sarcastically responded that she had been out drinking with coworkers at the Village Inn Pizza Parlor, but that was not true. Defendant testified that she did not drink any alcohol before she drove her automobile. II. MOTION FOR MISTRIAL Defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a mistrial because the jury was informed that defendant was previously in a driving accident involving alcohol and because the prosecutor referred to defendant's participation in a court-sponsored treatment program. We disagree. We review the denial of a motion for a mistrial for an abuse of discretion. People v Alter, 255 Mich App 194, 205; 659 NW2d 667 (2003). "A mistrial should be granted only for an irregularity that is prejudicial to the rights of the defendant . . . and impairs his ability to get a fair trial." Id. (citation omitted). At trial, the prosecutor questioned defendant, "Have you ever consumed large quantities of alcohol and driven a vehicle?" Defendant replied, "No, sir." Defense counsel requested a bench conference. The trial court excused the jury to allow the prosecutor to make an offer of proof. The prosecutor subsequently asked defendant the following questions outside the presence of the jury: Q. Ms. Skinner, isn't it true that in 2006 you were involved in a car accident? A. Yes. *** Q. And at that time wasn't

Download PEOPLE OF MI V DIANA SKINNER.pdf

Michigan Law