PEOPLE OF MI V DON LYDELL BRYANT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
May 12, 1998
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 197048
Genesee Circuit Court
LC No. 95-053356 FC
DON LYDELL BRYANT,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: McDonald, P.J., and Saad and Smolenski, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, MCL 750 316(a); MSA
28.548(a). The trial court sentenced defendant to life imprisonment without parole. Defendant appeals
as of right. We affirm.
Defendant argues the trial court abused its discretion in denying a defense motion in limine to bar
admission of photographs of the victim’s face and body. The photographs in question were not
admitted as evidence and the jury never saw them. The prosecutor showed the pictures to the medical
examiner and defendant to aid their testimony. Defendant concedes this, but argues reversal is required
because the jury was somehow nonetheless inflamed by the photographs. Defendant has not cited any
authority in support of his position. We decline to address whether the trial court abused its discretion
in denying defendant’s motion in limine because the pictures were not admitted into evidence and
because defendant failed to cite authority in support of his position. People v Piotrowski, 211 Mich
App 527, 530; 536 NW2d 293 (1995).
Next, defendant contends resentencing is required because the judgment of sentence indicates
an illegal sentence of 999 years’ imprisonment. Defendant’s argument is without merit. The trial court
filed an amended judgment of sentence that correctly reflects defendant was sentenced to life
imprisonment.
Defendant also claims the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because
there was insufficient evidence of premeditation to sustain a first-degree murder conviction. We
disagree. Here, the prosecutor presented ample evidence to permit a rational trier of fact to find
beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intentionally killed the victim and that the killing was
-1
premeditated and deliberate. People v Williams, 212 Mich App 607, 608; 538 NW2d 89 (1995).
Several witnesses at the trial testified that they saw defendant and Shanar Cole repeatedly hit and kick
the victim while she was defenseless, drag her to the trash dumpster, jump on top of her, and tear off
her clothes. There was also evidence that defendant and Cole beat the victim with a stick and stabbed
her with a knife. Defendant and Cole stopped the attack on the victim and came inside several times,
and then returned outside to continue beating the victim. This evidence alone indicates defendant had a
sufficient amount of time to take a “second look” at what he was doing, which is sufficient to establish
the element of premeditation and deliberation. People v Anderson, 209 Mich App 527, 537; 531
NW2d 780 (1995). Moreover, in light of the extent of the victim’s injuries and the circumstances of the
killing, there was more than enough evidence to establish premeditation. Accordingly, the trial court did
not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a directed verdict.
Defendant further asserts the court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial. Defendant says a
mistrial was warranted because the prosecutor made improper insinuations about defendant’s economic
status while cross-examining him. We disagree. The prosecutor never asked defendant about his
employment status or how he supported his children, and never made any comments about defendant’s
economic status during closing argument. See People v Johnson, 393 Mich 488, 496-497; 227
NW2d 523 (1975). The prosecutor’s questions were properly responsive to defendant’s testimony on
direct examination and did not deny defendant a fair trial. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in refusing to grant a mistrial on this basis. People v Cunningham, 215 Mich App 652, 654;
546 NW2d 715 (1996).
Additionally defendant says the trial court should have granted a mistrial based on improper
comments the prosecutor made during closing argument. Specifically, defendant contends the
prosecutor appealed to the jurors to sympathize with the victim, inflamed the jury by referring to
defendant as “this man,” and made disparaging remarks about the lesser included offenses that the
defense asked the trial court to include in the jury instructions. We find none of the alleged improper
comments denied defendant a fair trial. People v Paquette, 214 Mich App 336, 342; 543 NW2d 342
(1996). Moreover, the trial court’s instructions to the jury that it must not allow sympathy or prejudice
to influence its verdict and that the arguments of the lawyers are not evidence cured any possible
prejudice. People v Bahoda, 448 Mich 261, 281; 531 NW2d 659 (1995). Accordingly, the trial
court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial on this basis.
Cunningham, supra at 654.
Finally, defendant alleges the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash the information.
Defendant contends the prosecution failed to prove premeditation at the preliminary examination. We
disagree. We find the magistrate did not abuse its discretion in binding defendant over on the open
murder charge because the prosecution presented ample evidence to establish probable cause that
defendant intentionally killed the victim with premeditation and deliberation. People v McBride, 204
Mich App 678, 681; 516 NW2d 148 (1994).
Affirmed.
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ Henry William Saad
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-2
-3
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.