PEOPLE OF MI V ANIEL RUZZIN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
May 2, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 190372
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 94-134992
ANIEL RUZZIN,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Michael J. Kelly, P.J., Wahls, and Gage, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his jury trial conviction of felonious assault, MCL 750.82; MSA
28.277. The trial court sentenced defendant to five years’ probation. We affirm.
Defendant argues that the court’s instruction to the deadlocked jury was unduly coercive and
caused the jury to reach a verdict against their will. We disagree. Defendant waived this issue by failing
to object. People v Pollick, 448 Mich 376, 387-388; 531 NW2d 159 (1995). Even if there had
been an objection, reversal would not be required under the facts of this case. See People v Hardin,
421 Mich 296, 314-315; 365 NW2d 101 (1984); People v Holmes, 132 Mich App 730, 749; 349
NW2d 230 (1984).
Defendant argues that the district court erred by binding defendant over on counts II and III for
felonious assault with an automobile. To preserve for appeal a claim of error relating to a preliminary
examination, a defendant must raise the issue before or during trial. People v Sparks, 53 Mich App
452, 454; 220 NW2d 153 (1974). In addition, it is not appropriate to address issues not raised in the
statement of questions presented. Marx v Dep’t of Commerce, 220 Mich 66, 81; ___ NW2d ___
(1996).
Next, defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to submit counts II and III to the
jury. We disagree. The victims testified that defendant’s vehicle followed them out of a restaurant,
nudged their vehicle at a red light, and followed only three feet behind them while traveling at forty miles
per hour. Defendant passed the victims’ vehicle on the left, forcing it out of its traveling lane into a
-1
turning lane on the right. Further, the evidence indicated that the assaults occurred immediately after a
domestic dispute between the victims and defendant, to which the police were called, and a gun was
found in defendant’s car. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there was
sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find that the essential elements of the crime were proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Davis, 216 Mich App 47, 52-54; 549 NW2d 1(1996).
Finally, defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by limiting his ability to cross
examine Ruzzin and Olmack regarding their extramarital affair. We disagree. The jury was aware of
the affair, and counsel was allowed to argue that the witness’ testimony was not credible due to their
motive to fabricate. The trial court acted within his discretion by limiting the questioning of the witnesses
regarding the collateral aspects of their relationship. See People v Mills, 450 Mich 61, 75; 537 NW2d
909 (1995); Wischmeyer v Schanz, 449 Mich 469, 474-475; 536 NW2d 760 (1995).
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Myron H. Wahls
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
-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.
