PEOPLE OF MI V DEBRA LYNN KETCHUM CARPENTER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 21, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 212032
Clinton Circuit Court
LC No. 98-006412-FH
DEBRA LYNN KETCHUM CARPENTER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Kelly, P.J., and Markey and Collins, JJ.
KELLY, P.J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, the items removed from the trunk of defendant’s car
were inadmissible at trial.
The ruling governing the admission of physical evidence requires that a proper foundation
be laid, that the articles be identified as those they purport to be and that the articles are shown to
be connected with the crime or with the accused. People v Furman, 158 Mich App 302, 331;
404 NW2d 246 (1987). “In short, there must be sufficient evidence of (1) the exhibit’s identity
and (2) its connection to the crime to support its admission at trial.” People v Hence, 110 Mich
App 154, 162; 321 NW2d 191 (1981).
The testimony established that the chains and cuffs were located in the trunk of
defendant’s car, and nothing more. There was no direct testimony supporting the conclusion that
the specific items were used to chain Joey to the bed on October 16, 1997. The detective
testified that his opinion that the cuffs in the car were used to restrain Joey on October 16, 1997,
was based solely on the photograph taken of the dimly lit basement that revealed handcuffs on
the bed. The detective also testified that, besides one short piece of chain with a padlock, he did
not observe any of the evidence taken from defendant’s car in the basement of the house. None
of the witnesses testified that the items taken from defendant’s car were used to restrain Joey on
October 16, 1997. Although the cuffs seized from the trunk of the car may have matched those
exposed in the photographs, the cuffs were not unique.
Evidence that is probative is said to have “logical relevance,” while evidence lacking in
probative value may be termed “remote” or “speculative.” McCormick, Evidence (3d ed), § 185,
p 542. The evidence seized from defendant’s car had little or no probative value, and its
introduction was based on the detective’s speculation that the items had been in the basement
-1-
bedroom. The prosecution failed to show the logical relevance of the items seized from
defendant’s car. MRE 104(b). The evidence should not have been admitted. The probative
value, if any, of this evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
MRE 403. Because I do not believe that the admission of the evidence was harmless, I would
reverse and remand for a new trial.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
-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.