PEOPLE OF MI V MICHAEL DAVID ELLIOT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
March 18, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 174954
Gladwin Circuit Court
LC No. 93-005282-FC
MICHAEL DAVID ELLIOT,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Reilly, and C.D. Corwin,* JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was found guilty by a jury of four counts of first-degree murder, MCL 750.316;
MSA 28.548, and one count each of armed robbery, MCL 750.529; MSA 28.797, entry without
breaking with intent to commit a larceny, MCL 750.111; MSA 28.306, arson of a dwelling house,
MCL 750.72; MSA 28.267, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL
750.227b; MSA 28.424(2). Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for each of
the murder convictions, life imprisonment with the possibility of parole for the armed robbery conviction,
thirteen to twenty years’ imprisonment for the arson conviction, three to five years’ imprisonment for the
entry without breaking conviction, and two years’ consecutive imprisonment for the felony-firearm
conviction. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm.
Defendant was not denied a fair trial for any of the reasons claimed on appeal. The trial court
did not pierce the veil of impartiality and its questioning of a prosecution witness did not deprive
defendant of a fair trial. People v Sowders, 164 Mich App 36, 49; 417 NW2d 78 (1987); People v
Davis, 216 Mich App 47, 50; 549 NW2d 1 (1996). The court did not abuse its discretion in admitting
the complained of exhibits. People v Mills, 450 Mich 61; 537 NW2d 909 (1995). Nor did the court
abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s pre-trial motion for change of venue. People v DeLisle, 202
Mich App 658; 509 NW2d 885 (1993).
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
Defendant’s failure to object to the jury instructions regarding unanimity waives appellate review
absent manifest injustice. People v Cross, 202 Mich App 138, 148; 508 NW2d 144 (1993). We are
not persuaded that manifest injustice will result and decline to further address the issue. The trial court
did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury on an intoxication defense because the
evidence did not support that instruction. People v Coddington, 188 Mich App 584, 603, 604;
NW2d 478 (1992).
As for defendant’s c
hallenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the felony murder
convictions, we note that the jury indicated that it found defendant guilty of four counts of both felony
murder and premeditated murder. At sentencing, the court vacated the felony murder convictions.
Therefore, whether there was sufficient evidence to support the felony murder convictions is moot.
The court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence. People v Jordan,
187 Mich App 582, 587; 468 NW2d 294 (1991). The court neither clearly erred with respect to its
findings of fact nor abused its discretion in deciding that hearsay statements attributable to Chuck
Treece were admissible as statements against penal interest. MRE 803(b)(3); People v Barrera, 451
Mich 261, 268-269; 547 NW2d 280 (1996); People v Poole, 444 Mich 151; 506 NW2d 505
(1993). Finally, having rejected defendant’s individual claims of error, we likewise reject his claim that
the cumulative effect of the alleged errors denied him a fair trial.
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Maureen Pulte Reilly
/s/ Charles D. Corwin
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.