Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v MATHEW LUKE WOLFE, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED October 8, 2009

No. 286700 Ingham Circuit Court LC No. 07-001595-FH

Before: M. J. Kelly, P. J., and K. F. Kelly and Shapiro, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right from his jury trial convictions of interfering with electronic communications, MCL 750.540(5)(a), and domestic assault and battery, second offense, MCL 750.81(3).1 We affirm. I. Basic Facts This matter involves an altercation between defendant and the victim, his former girlfriend. Allegedly, defendant pushed and grabbed the victim with both hands, threw her to the ground, and kicked her in the stomach several times. Officers were called to the residence and defendant was arrested and charged. Before trial, defendant sent the victim several letters in which he asked that she refuse to testify or that she deny that he struck her, and also admitted to breaking her cell phone during the incident. On the first day of trial, defense counsel was present during voir dire and presented an opening statement to the jury. The prosecution then proceeded with its case and produced two witnesses, including the victim and Matthew Salmon, one of the officers who responded to the residence. While cross-examining the victim, defense counsel revealed defendant's probation status in an attempt to impeach the victim's credibility. Concerned that a mistrial would be necessary because of the prejudicial nature of defense counsel's question, the trial court excused the jury from the courtroom and asked defense counsel whether defendant would concur in a mistrial. The following colloquy then occurred:

1

This appeal has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).

-1-

THE COURT: DEFENSE COUNSEL: DEFENDANT: THE COURT: DEFENSE COUNSEL: The trial court continued: THE COURT: DEFENSE COUNSEL: THE COURT:

[Defense counsel, you] discussed the matter with your client and it's your client's desire to do what? He would like to continue with the trial. Per se [sic]. Sir, you have an attorney. Per se [sic]. He'd like to continue per se [sic].

I note that [defendant] has requested that he be permitted to defend himself; is that correct? That's correct, Your Honor. Well, that's denied. He has an attorney. So long as you're here to assist him in his presentation of his defense. Now, do you wish to question witnesses, sir? Yes, Your Honor. Any problem with that, [prosecutor]? You know, Judge, I guess I'd have a concern as whether or not that in itself would be prejudicial, that halfway during the trial he

Download PEOPLE OF MI V MATHEW LUKE WOLFE.pdf

Michigan Law