PEOPLE OF MI V DIETRICK POPS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
March 9, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
DIETRICK POPS also known as DIETRICK DEON
POPS also known as DIETRICT POTTS,
No. 199566
Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 96-070443 FH
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Markman and Smolenski, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his conviction by a jury of first-degree child abuse. MCL
750.136b; MSA 28.331(2). The court sentenced defendant to one year in prison and five years’
probation. We affirm.
This case arose from defendant’s abuse of his live-in girlfriend’s thirteen-month-old daughter.
The child was prescribed medication after a visit to the hospital for a cold and asthma attack, but her
mother reported that she was otherwise feeling fine, playing and laughing when her mother left her in
defendant’s care in the afternoon of March 9, 1996. When the mother returned home in the early
morning hours, defendant told her that the child had been vomiting black matter and would not eat; and
the child appeared dazed, was unable to stand, and made moaning noises. Several hours later, the child
vomited again and the mother called an ambulance. During surgery, the doctor found tears in her bowel
and colon area, a bruised liver, lymph nodes that were torn out of place, and the abdominal cavity filled
with old blood. He opined that the child had been kicked or punched four times between twenty-four
and thirty hours earlier. After the child’s injuries were ascertained, defendant accused the doctor of
falsifying the injuries in order to get defendant in trouble, and threatened the doctor. He also expressed
concern that “they’re going to try and say I did it,” and prayed with his girlfriend, “God forgive us. God
forgive me for what I’ve done. Forgive everybody for what they’ve done.” The child’s mother
subsequently told several different stories about when her child first started vomiting and the overall state
of her health.
-1
Defendant first argues that his motion for a directed verdict should have been granted because
there was insufficient evidence to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. When reviewing a trial
court’s ruling on a motion for directed verdict, this Court views the evidence in the light most favorable
to the prosecutor in order to determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the elements of a
crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Jolly, 442 Mich 458, 466; 502 NW2d 177
(1993). To prove defendant guilty of first-degree child abuse, the prosecutor had to show that
defendant “knowingly or intentionally cause[d] serious physical or serious mental harm to a child.”
MCL 750.136b(2); MSA 28.331(2)(2). The only element disputed in the instant case was the identity
of the person who harmed the child. The doctor who treated the victim established a time frame in
which the injuries most likely occurred. Within that twenty-two hour time frame, defendant was the
person with the greatest opportunity to harm the child; he was alone with the child for approximately
seven to eight hours. During the remaining time period, although there were others with an opportunity
to harm the child, defendant himself testified that he saw no one hurt her. Although the child’s mother
was alone with the child for a part of this time period, this was only after the child had already exhibited
symptoms of her injuries. In addition, defendant requested that “God forgive me for what I’ve done”
immediately after being confronted by the doctor with the nature of the child’s injuries. Allowing for
reasonable inferences to be drawn and taking the facts in the light most favorable to the prosecutor,
Jolly, supra at 466, a reasonable trier of fact could have found defendant guilty beyond a reasonable
doubt.
Defendant next argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a
new trial because the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence. People v Daniel, 207 Mich
App 47, 50; 523 NW2d 830 (1994). In particular, defendant challenges the credibility of the doctor
who testified at trial, arguing that his trial testimony conflicted with his preliminary examination testimony.
However, “[w]here the evidence given is conflicting, it is for the jury to decide what weight to assess to
the evidence.” People v Marji, 180 Mich App 525, 529; 542 NW2d 835 (1989). Further, “it was
for the jury to evaluate these discrepancies and determine the credibility of this testimony.” Id. Thus,
we will not solely evaluate the expert’s credibility on this issue and will trust the abilities of the jurors on
this issue. People v Lemmon, 456 Mich 625, 638; 576 NW2d 129 (1998). Based on the entire
record, including defendant’s opportunity to harm the child, his statements and behavior following
diagnosis of the child’s injuries, the medical opinions, and the condition of the child before and after
being in defendant sole care, we conclude that the verdict was not against the great weight of the
evidence and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Affirmed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Stephen J. Markman
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-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.
