Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v SUSIE MAE CONNER, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED March 10, 2005

No. 253179 Mecosta Circuit Court LC No. 02-005010-FC

Before: Saad, P.J., and Smolenski and Cooper, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant was convicted by a jury of one count of first-degree premeditated murder, MCL 750.316(a), one count of felony murder, MCL 750.316(b), and one count of kidnapping, MCL 750.349. The court combined the two murder convictions into one first-degree murder conviction based on the alternative theories of premeditation and felony murder, and vacated the kidnapping conviction. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. We affirm. Defendant first argues that the trial court violated her Confrontation Clause1 rights when it permitted her son to testify to statements made by her former husband and non-testifying codefendant. We disagree. This Court has long recognized that, in the context of evidentiary issues, a defendant waives review of the admission of evidence which he introduced, or which was made relevant by his own placement of a matter in issue. People v Knapp, 244 Mich App 361, 378; 624 NW2d 227 (2001). Moreover, our Supreme Court, in People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 215; 612 NW2d 144 (2000), stated that a party who waives his rights by intentional relinquishment or abandonment "may not then seek appellate review of a claimed deprivation of those rights for his waiver has extinguished any error" (citations omitted). Waiver is available in a broad array of constitutional and statutory provisions and even the "most basic rights of criminal defendants are . . . subject to waiver." New York v Hill, 528 US 110, 114; 120 S Ct 797; 145 L Ed 2d 560 (2000) (citation omitted). Only the defendant can waive certain fundamental rights, but for other

1

US Const, Am VI; Const 1963, art 1,

Download PEOPLE OF MI V SUSIE MAE CONNER.pdf

Michigan Law