Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v STEPHANIE ANN STEIN, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED February 25, 2010

No. 286678 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 07-015120

Before: Davis, P.J., and Fort Hood and Servitto, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant, a teacher, appeals by right her jury trial convictions of two counts of criminal sexual conduct in the third degree (CSC III), MCL 750.520d(1)(a); one count of use of the internet or computer to communicate for the purposes of committing a crime, MCL 750.145d(1)(a); and one count of distributing sexually explicit material to a minor, MCL 722.675. Defendant, whose convictions were based upon an intimate relationship she had with a 15-year-old student at the school where she was employed, was sentenced to concurrent terms of 36 to 180 months for her CSC III convictions, 30 to 48 months for her use of the internet or computer to communicate for the purposes of committing a crime conviction, and 16 to 24 months for her distributing sexually explicit material to a minor conviction. Because there was no error in the admission of defendant's written statement, an exhibit, or the exhibit author's testimony, we affirm. On appeal, defendant first argues that the trial court erred when it denied her motion to suppress her written statement. Specifically, defendant argues that she was not advised of her Miranda1 rights before she gave her written statement, and that the statement was thus inadmissible. We review a trial court's decision whether to grant or deny a motion to suppress evidence de novo. People v Williams, 240 Mich App 316, 319; 614 NW2d 647 (2000). However, the trial court's factual findings are reviewed for clear error. Id.

1

Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436; 86 S Ct 1602; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966).

-1-

Criminal defendants have a constitutional right against self-incrimination. Const 1963, art 1,

Download PEOPLE OF MI V STEPHANIE ANN STEIN.pdf

Michigan Law