Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v KEITH LLOYD FIELDS, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED December 19, 2006

No. 265139 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 05-002559-01

Before: Jansen, P.J., and Sawyer and Bandstra, JJ. PER CURIAM. Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of extortion, MCL 750.213, and thirddegree criminal sexual conduct (CSC III), MCL 750.520d(1)(b)(force or coercion). Defendant was sentenced as a habitual offender, MCL 769.11, to concurrent prison terms of four-and-onehalf to twenty years for the extortion conviction and 75 to 180 months for the CSC III conviction. He appeals as of right. We affirm. Defendant first argues that complainant's hearsay statements were not admissible as prior consistent statements because they were introduced to bolster his credibility and did not fall within any recognized exception permitting their introduction. Defendant also argues that the statements were not admissible as excited utterances. We agree that the statements are not admissible as prior consistent statements. However, we disagree with defendant's argument that they are not admissible as excited utterances. To preserve an evidentiary issue for review, a party opposing the admission of evidence must object at trial and specify the same ground for objection that it asserts on appeal. MRE 103(a)(1); People v Grant, 445 Mich 535, 545, 553; 520 NW2d 123 (1994). In this case, defendant did not object to the admission of the relevant testimony at trial and, therefore, did not preserve the evidentiary issue for review. Therefore, appellate review is limited to whether the admission of the evidence constituted plain error that affected defendant's substantial rights. People v Spanke, 254 Mich App 642, 644; 658 NW2d 504 (2003). "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. MRE 801(c). Hearsay is not admissible unless the rules of evidence provide otherwise. MRE 802. One exception to the hearsay rule is for an excited utterance. MRE 803(2). An excited utterance is defined as a "statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress -1-


of excitement caused by the event or condition." Id. The rationale behind the excited utterance exception is that "it is perceived that a person who is still under the `sway of excitement precipitated by an external startling event will not have the reflective capacity essential for fabrication so that any utterance will be spontaneous and trustworthy.' " People v Smith, 456 Mich 543, 550; 581 NW2d 654 (1998), quoting 5 Weinstein, Evidence (2d ed),

Download PEOPLE OF MI V KEITH LLOYD FIELDS.pdf

Michigan Law