PEOPLE OF MI V SIMON PETER MELTON

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED August 11, 2000 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 214704 Wayne Circuit Court Criminal Division LC No. 98-000081 SIMON PETER MELTON, Defendant-Appellant. Before: Murphy, P.J., and Kelly and Talbot, JJ. MEMORANDUM. Defendant appeals as of right from his conviction of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny, MCL 750.110; MSA 28.305, entered after a jury trial. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). Defendant was charged in connection with a break-in at a market. Police officers who responded to the scene testified that defendant was inside the market, and that he jumped through a broken front window and ran from the scene. He was apprehended a short distance from the market. The market owner testified that while a window had been broken, no doors had been disturbed. He responded in the negative when asked if a person could gain entry to the store by any other means. The trial court precluded questions about previous break-ins at the store. The decision to admit evidence is within the discretion of the trial court. People v Starr, 457 Mich 490, 494; 577 NW2d 673 (1998). Evidence is relevant if it has any tendency to make the existence of a fact which is of consequence to the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. MRE 401; People v Crawford, 458 Mich 376, 388; 582 NW2d 785 (1998). Reversible error cannot be predicated on an evidentiary ruling unless a substantial right was affected by the ruling. MCL 769.26; MSA 28.1096; MRE 103(a); People v Travis, 443 Mich 668, 686; 505 NW2d 563 (1993). Defendant argues that the trial court denied him due process and the right to present a defense by precluding questions regarding possible points of exit from the store. We disagree. Although the -1­ trial court precluded questions about previous break-ins, evidence regarding other possible points of entry/exit was introduced. On cross-examination, complainant testified that other than going through the doors, a person could enter the market through the windows and possibly through the roof. He responded in the negative when asked if a person could enter by any other means, and denied that a person could gain entry by removing a piece of wood that covered an opening in a wall. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by precluding further questions on this topic, or regarding previous break­ ins. Further questions would not have produced relevant evidence. MRE 401; Crawford, supra. Police officers testified that defendant was in the store, and that he exited the store through the window and attempted to escape. The jury was entitled to accept this testimony. People v Marji, 180 Mich App 525, 542; 447 NW2d 835 (1989). The evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny. People v Wolfe, 440 Mich 508, 514-515; 489 NW2d 748 (1992), amended 441 Mich 1201 (1992). Affirmed. /s/ William B. Murphy /s/ Michael J. Kelly /s/ Michael J. Talbot -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.