PEOPLE OF MI V JEFFREY CARNEY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
March 22, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 226947
Muskegon Circuit Court
LC No. 99-044092-FH
JEFFREY CARNEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Meter, P.J., and Markey and Owens, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals by right from his conviction by a jury of assault of a prison employee,
MCL 750.197c. The trial court sentenced him as a third-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.11,
to 43 months to 8 years’ imprisonment. We affirm.
Defendant argues that the trial court erred by failing to grant his motion for a mistrial
after a juror allegedly observed him in handcuffs. We review for an abuse of discretion a trial
court's decision to deny a motion for a mistrial. People v Dennis, 464 Mich 567, 572; 628 NW2d
502 (2001). An abuse of discretion occurred if an unprejudiced person, considering the facts on
which the trial court acted, would find no justification for the ruling made. People v Ullah, 216
Mich App 669, 673; 550 NW2d 568 (1996).
“[W]here a jury inadvertently sees a shackled defendant, there must be some showing
that prejudice resulted” for reversal to be warranted. People v Moore, 164 Mich App 378, 385;
417 NW2d 508 (1987), remanded on other grounds 433 Mich 851 (1989). Here, the trial court
ruled that any prejudice was minimal to none, because the nature of the charged crime had
already informed the jury that defendant was a prisoner. We agree and hold that the trial court
did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for mistrial.
Next, defendant argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct requiring reversal by
questioning defendant’s credibility during closing arguments. However, defendant did not object
below to the comments he now challenges on appeal. Accordingly, we review this issue for
plain error. People v Schultz, 246 Mich App 695, 709; 635 NW2d 491 (2001). Reversal is
warranted only if a clear or obvious error occurred that likely affected the outcome of the case.
Id.
-1-
A prosecutor in closing arguments may argue that, based on the facts, a witness is not
worthy of belief. People v Avant, 235 Mich App 499, 512; 597 NW2d 864 (1999). Moreover, a
prosecutor need not confine arguments to the blandest possible terms. People v Marji, 180 Mich
App 525, 538; 447 NW2d 835 (1989), remanded on other grounds sub nom People v Thomas,
439 Mich 896; 478 NW2d 445 (1991). Finally, we note that the trial court in the instant case
specifically instructed the jurors that it was their role to determine the witnesses’ credibility and
that the attorneys’ statements and arguments were not evidence. Under these circumstances, no
clear or obvious error occurred that likely affected the outcome of the case.1
Affirmed.
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Donald S. Owens
1
Additionally, a curative instruction could have cured any prejudicial effect resulting from the
prosecutor’s comments, and the comments did not result in miscarriage of justice. See People v
Stanaway, 446 Mich 643, 687; 521 NW2d 557 (1994).
-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.
