PEOPLE OF MI V JOHN THOMAS NOWAK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
October 3, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 217763
Midland Circuit Court
LC No. 98-008914-FH
JOHN THOMAS NOWAK,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and McDonald, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right from his jury trial convictions of operating a vehicle under the
influence of liquor, third offense (OUIL 3d), MCL 257.625(1); MSA 9.2325(1), and driving with a
suspended license, second or subsequent offense, MCL 257.904(1); MSA 9.2604(1). Defendant also
pleaded guilty to unlawful use of a license plate, MCL 257.256; MSA 9.1956. Defendant was
sentenced as an habitual offender, fourth offense, MCL 769.12 MSA 28.1084, to concurrent prison
terms of six to fifteen years for the OUIL 3d conviction, one year for the driving with a suspended
license conviction, and ninety days for the unlawful use of a license plate conviction. We affirm.
Defendant first argues that the trial court erred in not granting his motion for mistrial after a
police officer testifying as a prosecution witness mentioned defendant’s prior imprisonment. We
disagree. “The ruling on a motion for mistrial is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. The
test is whether the defendant has been deprived of a fair trial.” People v Hackney, 183 Mich App
516, 531; 455 NW2d 358 (1990)(citations omitted). “[A] mistrial should be granted only where the
error complained of is so serious that the prejudicial effect can be removed in no other way.” People v
Lumsden, 168 Mich App 286, 299; 423 NW2d 645 (1988).
The record clearly establishes that the police officer’s brief reference to defendant’s prior
imprisonment was unresponsive to the question posed by the prosecutor. “As a general rule,
unresponsive testimony by a prosecution witness does not justify a mistrial unless the prosecutor knew
in advance that the witness would give the unresponsive testimony or the prosecutor conspired with or
encouraged the witness to give that testimony.” Hackney, supra at 531. There is no evidence that the
-1
prosecutor either knew in advance that the reference would be made or that the prosecutor conspired
with the officer.
Additionally, we believe any prejudice engendered by the remark could have been effectively
dealt with by a cautionary instruction. The trial court stated that it would give a special instruction
contemporaneous with the improper remark, but for strategic reasons, defense counsel rejected this
offer. Further, defendant never requested that a cautionary instruction be given during the regular
charge to the jury at the close of proofs. See Lumsden, supra at 299. Given these circumstances, and
in light of the weight of the evidence, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying
defendant’s motion for mistrial.
Defendant also argues that his sentence of six to fifteen years’ imprisonment for his OUIL 3d
conviction is disproportionate. Again, we disagree. This Court reviews a trial court’s sentence imposed
on an habitual offender for an abuse of discretion. People v Hansford (After Remand), 454 Mich
320, 324; 562 NW2d 460 (1997). “[A] trial court does not abuse its discretion in giving a sentence
within the statutory limits . . . when an habitual offender’s underlying felony, in the context of his previous
felonies, evidences that the defendant has an inability to conform his conduct to the laws of society.” Id.
at 326. Defendant’s sentence is within the statutory limits, and the record clearly establishes his inability
to reform and conform his behavior to the laws of Michigan. Id. Accordingly, we hold that defendant’s
OUIL 3d sentence is not disproportionate to this offense and this offender. People v Milbourn, 435
Mich 630, 636; 461 NW2d 1 (1990).
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
-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.