PEOPLE OF MI V MARIS BRY BOYD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
October 19, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 223849
Saginaw Circuit Court
LC No. 99-017018-FC
MARIS BRY BOYD,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: K. F. Kelly, P.J., and Murphy and Fitzgerald, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right his jury convictions of carjacking, MCL 750.529a,
possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b, carrying a dangerous
weapon in a motor vehicle, MCL 750.227, discharge of a firearm from a motor vehicle, MCL
750.234a, and assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder, MCL 750.84.
Defendant was found not guilty of assault with intent to murder, MCL 750.83, and larceny from
a motor vehicle, MCL 750.356a. We affirm.
Defendant first argues that expert testimony was improperly admitted. However, even
assuming that this testimony regarding the source of a bullet hole in the car was outside the
scope established as the proper province of the witness’ accident reconstruction expertise, any
error was harmless. The challenged testimony was clearly not outcome determinative, see
People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484, 495-496; 596 NW2d 607 (1999), where eyewitnesses identified
defendant at the scene, saw defendant with a gun, and saw defendant shoot through the
automobile’s rear passenger window.
Defendant’s next challenge, that he was denied effective assistance of counsel, fails to
overcome the strong presumption that the assistance rendered by counsel was effective. People v
Stanaway, 446 Mich 643, 687; 521 NW2d 557 (1994), cert den sub nom Michigan v Caruso, 513
US 1121; 115 S Ct 923; 130 L Ed 2d 802 (1995). Counsel’s failure to present evidence at trial
does not merit reversal where the failure did not deprived the defendant of a substantial,
outcome-determinative defense. People v Hyland, 212 Mich App 701, 710; 538 NW2d 465
(1995), modified 453 Mich 902; 554 NW2d 899 (1996). Further, the mere fact that defense
counsel did not call witnesses or cross-examine all witnesses called by the prosecutor in no way
overcomes the presumption that this was trial strategy. People v Rockey, 237 Mich App 74, 76;
601 NW2d 887 (1999). Defense counsel’s performance does not appear to have been below an
-1-
objective standard of reasonableness under prevailing professional norms. Strickland v
Washington, 466 US 668, 687; 104 S Ct 2052; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984); Stanaway, supra at 688.1
Affirmed.
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
1
The record indicates nothing to warrant a hearing pursuant to People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436,
443; 212 NW2d 922 (1973).
-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.
