PEOPLE OF MI V BARRY A KNOWLES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
January 28, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 208786
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 97-500957
BARRY A. KNOWLES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Bandstra, C.J., and Holbrook, Jr. and Fitzgerald, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Following a bench trial, defendant was convicted of second-degree criminal sexual conduct,
MCL 750.520c(1)(a); MSA 28.788(3)(1)(a), and was sentenced to six to fifteen years’ imprisonment.
He appeals as of right. We affirm.
Defendant first argues that the verdicts are inconsistent. Specifically, he contends that the trial
court erred in acquitting him on three counts, but convicting him of one count of second-degree criminal
sexual conduct, when the complainant’s testimony was equally unclear on all counts. We disagree.
When presiding over a bench trial, a judge must decide the facts from the evidence presented
and apply the law to those facts. People v Cazal, 412 Mich 680, 689; 316 NW2d 705 (1982). A
judge must articulate the facts on the record along with conclusions of law in determining the outcome.
Id. at 689; see also MCR 2.517(A). A trial court’s factual findings are sufficient as long as it appears
that the court was aware of the factual issues and correctly applied the law. People v Legg, 197 Mich
App 131, 134; 494 NW2d 797 (1992); People v Edwards, 171 Mich App 613, 620; 431 NW2d 83
(1988). We review a trial court’s findings of fact for clear error. People v Parker, 230 Mich App
337, 338; 584 NW2d 336 (1998).
Here, the trial court made specific findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record. The
court found, contrary to defendant’s assertions, that sexual activity had occurred, but that the
complainant was unable to differentiate the conduct into separate and distinct incidents. Because the
trial court had a reasonable doubt as to the number of times that the activity occurred, the court
convicted defendant of one count and acquitted him on the remaining three counts.
-1
This verdict is not inconsistent and does not represent a compromise verdict. The trial court
credited all of the complainant’s testimony and disbelieved defendant’s self-serving testimony. The
court was simply unsure that the eight-year-old complainant was able to separate the conduct into
distinct incidents. Therefore, the trial court’s findings of fact were not clearly erroneous.
Defendant next argues that he was prejudiced because the prosecutor waived her opening
statement. We disagree.
Both MCR 2.507(A) and MCR 6.414(B) require a prosecutor to make an opening statement
unless the parties and the court agree otherwise. People v Stimage, 202 Mich App 28, 31; 507
NW2d 778 (1993). Because defense counsel and the trial court consented to the prosecutor’s waiver,
the prosecutor did not err in failing to make an opening statement. Furthermore, waiver of an opening
statement does not constitute error absent prejudice to the defendant. Id. None of defendant’s claims
of prejudice are attributable to the prosecutor’s waiver of an opening statement.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
-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.