Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v LIONEL L. VINCENT, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED May 26, 1998

No. 196342 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 94-135581-FC

Before: Hood, P.J., and MacKenzie and Doctoroff, JJ. PER CURIAM. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of kidnapping, MCL 750.349; MSA 28.582, first-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520b(1)(e); MSA 28.788(2)(1)(e), possession of a short-barreled shotgun, MCL 750.224b(1); MSA 28.421(2)(1), being a felon in possession of a firearm, MCL 750.224f(2); MSA 28.421(6)(2), and two counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2). He subsequently pleaded guilty to being an habitual offender, second offense, MCL 769.10(1); MSA 28.1082(1). Defendant was sentenced to twenty to forty years' imprisonment for the kidnapping conviction, twenty to forty years' imprisonment for the first-degree CSC conviction, forty to ninety months' imprisonment for both the possession of a short-barreled shotgun conviction and the felon in possession of a firearm conviction, and two years' imprisonment for the felony-firearm convictions. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm. Defendant's convictions arise from a series of events in which he removed his ex-girlfriend at gunpoint from her mother's house, drove her to his brother's house, and finally took her to his sister's apartment. At some point during the trip, defendant ordered the complainant to get into the trunk of the car. At his sister's apartment, defendant, still armed, forced the complainant to have sexual intercourse. Someone in the apartment building eventually called the police with a report of "a man with a shotgun [and] a woman who didn't want to be there." Responding officers intercepted defendant and the complainant in the hallway of the apartment building. The complainant had ended her relationship with defendant about two weeks earlier, after defendant hit her in the face and threw a weight at her during an argument.

-1

On appeal, defendant first argues that error requiring reversal occurred during the jury selection process when the trial court allowed the attorneys to exercise more than one peremptory challenge at the same time. This Court has held that it is improper to exercise more than one peremptory challenge in one turn. People v Lewis, 160 Mich App 20, 32; 408 NW2d 94 (1987); People v Lawless, 136 Mich App 628, 635-636; 357 NW2d 724 (1984). See also MCR 2.511(E)(3)(a) and (F). In the this case, however, defense counsel did not object when the prosecutor exercised two peremptory challenges at the same time. Accordingly, reversal is not required. Lawless, supra, p 636; Lewis, supra, p 32. Moreover, defendant also specifically requested this method of jury selection. A party may not request an action of the trial court and then challenge that action on appeal as erroneous. People v McCray, 210 Mich App 9, 14; 533 NW2d 359 (1995). Finally, defense counsel did not express dissatisfaction with the jury panel that was ultimately selected. Under these circumstances, we conclude that reversal is not warranted. Next, defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing (1) the complainant and her mother to testify concerning defendant's assault on the complainant two weeks before the events in this case, and (2) a police officer to testify about shotgun damage caused by defendant at his brother's house. Defendant contends that the testimony regarding both matters should have been excluded under MRE 404(b). We disagree. The evidence concerning the prior assault was proper under MRE 404(b) since it established defendant's pattern of conduct with respect to the complainant and it helped to prove the intent with which he acted at the time of the events in this case. People v VanderVliet, 444 Mich 52, 64-65; 508 NW2d 114 (1993), modified 445 Mich 1205; 520 NW2d 338 (1994). Moreover, it was relevant since defendant asserted that the complainant consented to come with him and to have sex with him, see People v Asevedo, 217 Mich App 393, 398; 551 NW2d 478 (1996), and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, People v Fisher, 449 Mich 441, 451-453; 537 NW2d 577 (1995). With regard to the police officer's testimony, defendant failed to object to the evidence based on MRE 404(b). Therefore, we will review this issue only if necessary to avoid manifest injustice. People v King, 210 Mich App 425, 433; 534 NW2d 534 (1995). Because the shotgun damage took place during the kidnapping

Download PEOPLE OF MI V LIONEL L VINCENT.pdf

Michigan Law