PEOPLE OF MI V GERALD WILLIAMS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
August 4, 1998
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 200282
Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 96-006781 FH
GERALD WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Young, Jr. and M. R. Smith*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant was convicted of unarmed robbery, MCL 750.530; MSA 28.798, and sentenced to
an enhanced term of imprisonment of six to thirty years, reflecting his status as a third offender, MCL
769.11; MSA 28.1083. Defendant appeals as of right. We affirm.
The trial court abused its discretion when it admitted evidence that the victim had passed a drug
screening performed a month after the unarmed robbery giving rise to defendant’s conviction, where the
evidence had no probative force with regard to either the credibility of the victim or the defendant1 MRE
401; People v Mills, 450 Mich 61, 66-68, 72; 537 NW2d 909 (1995), modified 450 Mich 1212
(1995). Nevertheless, the error was harmless in light of the admission of the videotape from the store’s
security camera which confirmed the victim’s testimony that defendant forced his way into the closed
store and removed items from the store’s shelves. People v Sabin, 223 Mich App 530, 539-541; 566
NW2d 677 (1997).
Limiting our review to the record facts, People v Hedelsky, 162 Mich App 382, 397; 412
NW2d 746 (1987), defendant has failed to demonstrate that he was deprived of the effective assistance
of trial counsel. People v Mitchell, 454 Mich 145, 156; 560 NW2d 600 (1997); People v
Messenger, 221 Mich App 171, 181; 561 NW2d 463 (1997).
Defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review most of his claims of prosecutorial
misconduct. People v Stanaway, 446 Mich 643, 687; 521 NW2d 557 (1994). No miscarriage of
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
justice will result. Id. The claims of misconduct are either unsupported by the record, People v Fields,
450 Mich 94, 115; 538 NW2d 356 (1995); People v Bahoda, 448 Mich 261, 282; 531 NW2d 659
(1995); People v Launsburry, 217 Mich App 358, 361; 551 NW2d 460 (1996); People v Ullah,
216 Mich App 669, 678; 550 NW2d 568 (1996); People v Johnson, 187 Mich App 621, 626; 468
NW2d 307 (1991), or, where supported, amount to harmless error, Sabin, 223 Mich App 539-541;
People v Nelson, 86 Mich App 651, 653; 273 NW2d 512 (1978).
To the extent that defendant raises claims of instructional error, we decline to review the merits
of those claims because they are not set forth in the statement of the questions presented. City of
Lansing v Hartsuff, 213 Mich App 338, 351; 539 NW2d 781 (1995).
Affirmed.
/s/ Robert P. Young, Jr.
/s/ Michael R. Smith
I concur in result only.
/s/ William B. Murphy
1
Even if defendant were correct, and error warranting reversal occurred, a new trial would not be
warranted. Rather, by defendant’s own testimony, he conspired with the “victim” to commit, and
committed, embezzlement, for which a remand for sentencing on that offense, as enhanced, would be an
appropriate option to offer the prosecutor. People v Kyllonen, 402 Mich 135, 149 n 15; 262 NW2d
2 (1978).
-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.
