PEOPLE OF MI V MICHAEL DARNETT RUNYON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 13, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 226146
Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 99-007654-FH
MICHAEL DARNETT RUNYON,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Doctoroff, P.J., and Wilder and C. C. Schmucker*, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of resisting and obstructing a police
officer in the discharge of his duties, MCL 750.479, and receiving and concealing stolen property
with a value over $1,000, MCL 750.535(3)(a). The trial court sentenced him as a fourth felony
offender, MCL 769.12, to three to fifteen years’ imprisonment on each conviction, to be served
consecutively to a sentence already being served. Defendant appeals as of right and we affirm.
This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant’s convictions arose out of two separate incidents. In the first, defendant drove
an automobile belonging to a used car dealership. In the second, defendant drove this same car
to a convenience store where the store manager recognized him as someone she had seen stealing
cigarettes, from behind the store’s checkout counter, on surveillance videotape. The manager
called the police, and the responding deputy asked to see defendant’s identification and told him
that he had information that defendant may have been involved in a prior incident at the store.
Defendant stated that his identification was in his car’s glove compartment and the two went to
defendant’s car. Defendant got in the driver’s side of the car and “flew his left leg out” in an
apparent attempt to kick the deputy, started the car, and put it in reverse. The deputy responded
by striking the side of defendant’s face, getting on top of defendant, and holding him down on
the front seat while putting his foot on the brake pedal. The deputy estimated that he struggled
with defendant for four minutes before defendant was subdued.
The trial court allowed the convenience store manager to testify that she recognized
defendant because he looked like the person she had seen in the surveillance videotape. The jury
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
was also allowed to view the videotape. On appeal, defendant contends that this evidence was
inadmissible under MRE 404(b) and its admission denied him a fair trial. The admissibility of
bad acts evidence is within the trial court’s discretion and will be reversed on appeal only when
there has been a clear abuse of discretion. People v Crawford, 458 Mich 376, 383; 582 NW2d
785 (1998).
We find no abuse of discretion in this case. To be admissible under MRE 404(b), other
acts evidence generally must satisfy three requirements: (1) it must be offered for a proper
purpose, (2) it must be relevant, and (3) its probative value must not be substantially outweighed
by its potential for unfair prejudice. People v VanderVliet, 444 Mich 52, 74-75; 508 NW2d 114
(1993), amended 445 Mich 1205 (1994); People v Aguwa, 245 Mich App 1, 7; 626 NW2d 176
(2001). Each of these requirements was met. The prosecutor offered the evidence specifically to
show that the deputy had a reason for investigating defendant as a retail fraud suspect and asking
for his identification. Other acts evidence is admissible where the evidence is offered to prove
the essential elements of the offense and not to prove the defendant’s character or propensity to
commit the offense. Aguwa, supra at 8. One of the elements of resisting and obstructing an
officer in the discharge of his duty is that the officer was carrying out lawful duties at the time of
the offense. CJI2d 13.2. “Lawful duties” includes ordinary police functions, including
investigation of an alleged crime. People v Wess, 235 Mich App 241, 243-244; 597 NW2d 215
(1999).
In addition, because the videotape is evidence probative of defendant’s motive for
resisting arrest (i.e., to avoid prosecution for stealing the cigarettes), it was both logically and
legally relevant. Motive has long been defined in Michigan case law as “the inducement for
doing some act.” People v Kuhn, 232 Mich 310, 312; 205 NW 188 (1925). Our courts have held
that evidence of a defendant’s motive is logically relevant in order to establish (1) identity, (2)
actus reus, and (3) mens rea. People v Sabin (After Remand), 463 Mich 43, 68; 614 NW2d 888
(2000), citing Imwinkelried, Uncharged Misconduct Evidence, §§ 3:15, 4:19, and 5:35; see also
People v Engelman, 434 Mich 204, 223 n 28; 454 NW2d 656 (1990). Here, the videotape is
powerful evidence of defendant’s mens rea. Because defendant clearly knew whether he stole
the cigarettes, videotaped proof that he stole the cigarettes would establish both that he knew the
deputy was going to be making an arrest, and that the struggle was the result of his intention to
resist the deputy. Thus, because the videotape tended to make the existence of a fact of
consequence more probable (i.e., the videotape proved elements of the crime), the videotape was
legally relevant. See generally People v Hawkins, 245 Mich App 439, 448-450; ___ NW2d ___
(2001); MRE 401.
Finally, the probative value of the evidence was not substantially outweighed by its
prejudicial effect, especially in light of the limiting instruction given by the trial court.
Defendant also claims that the court’s cautionary instruction at the end of the trial did not
clarify that the jury could not consider the videotape and testimony when deciding the receiving
and concealing stolen property count. Defendant approved the instructions as given, however,
and therefore has waived this argument. People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 215; 612 NW2d 144
(2000).
-2-
Affirmed.
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Chad C. Schmucker
-3-
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.
