Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v JAMES EDWARD STRUBLE, Defendant-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED March 6, 2001

No. 218811 Otsego Circuit Court LC No. 98-002330-FC

Before: Murphy, P.J., and Griffin and Wilder, JJ. PER CURIAM. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520b(1)(a); MSA 28.788(2)(1)(a), involving his ten-year-old adopted daughter. The trial court sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of eight to twenty-five years' imprisonment on each count. Defendant appeals by right, and we affirm. Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting hearsay testimony from the victim's cousin as a prior consistent statement under MRE 801(d)(1)(B).1 We disagree. At trial, the victim's cousin testified that during a conversation with the victim during which they were discussing their relationships with their fathers, the victim stated "you don't know what it is like to be abused" and "at least your father doesn't abuse you." The victim made these statements in response to her cousin's complaints about how poor her own relationship with her father was. Defendant objected and the trial court admitted the testimony under MRE 801(d)(1)(B), finding that the testimony was offered to rebut the express or implied charge of improper influence or motive by defendant. The decision whether to admit or exclude evidence is within the trial court's sound discretion and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion. People v Starr, 457 Mich 490, 494; 577 NW2d 673 (1998). An abuse of discretion is found only if an unprejudiced person, considering the facts on which the trial court acted, would conclude there is no Defendant also argues at length that the victim's cousin's testimony was inadmissible under MRE 803A, the tender years exception to the hearsay rule; however, because the trial court did not admit the testimony pursuant to that rule, we decline to address that argument.
1

-1-

justification or excuse for the ruling made. People v McAlister, 203 Mich App 495, 505; 513 NW2d 431 (1994). MRE 801(d)(1) provides: (d) A statement is not hearsay if

Download PEOPLE OF MI V JAMES EDWARD STRUBLE.pdf

Michigan Law