Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v DORETHA GRAY, a/k/a CHRISTA JAYCOX, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED July 27, 2001

No. 225974 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 99-006827

Before: Wilder, P.J., and Hood and Griffin, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Defendant appeals as of right her bench trial convictions for carjacking, MCL 750.529A, armed robbery, MCL 750.529, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). Complainant testified she had just purchased cigarettes at a service station when defendant approached her and demanded her keys. Defendant pointed a gun at complainant, she gave defendant the keys, and defendant drove complainant's car away. Defendant was apprehended several days later after she ran a stop sign while driving the stolen car. On appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred in relying on an in-court identification that was based on suggestive pretrial procedures. However, defendant failed to challenge the incourt identification at trial. Absent manifest injustice, a claim of an unduly suggestive pretrial identification procedure will not be reviewed on appeal unless the defendant objected or moved the trial court to suppress the identification. People v Mischley, 164 Mich App 478, 481-482; 417 NW2d 537 (1987). Similarly, issues regarding the propriety of an in-court identification are waived absent objection. People v Whitfield, 214 Mich App 348, 351; 543 NW2d 347 (1995). Defendant waived review of the in-court identification. Complainant did not hesitate in identifying defendant. Defendant admitted being at the scene of the crime. There is no evidence that the identification was tainted by improper procedures.

-1-


Affirmed. /s/ Kurtis T. Wilder /s/ Harold Hood /s/ Richard Allen Griffin

-2-




Download PEOPLE OF MI V DORETHA GRAY.pdf

Michigan Law