PEOPLE OF MI V MARK STILLWELL SANFORD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 4, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 229778
Kalamazoo Circuit Court
LC No. 99-001319-FH
MARK STILWELL SANFORD,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Doctoroff, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right his jury conviction for felonious assault, MCL 750.82. We
affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant’s conviction arose out of an altercation that occurred at his home. An
argument deteriorated into a fight, and the victim was stabbed. Defendant claimed that he acted
in self-defense. On appeal, he argues that the verdict was against the great weight of the
evidence.
In order to preserve a claim that a verdict is against the great weight of the evidence, a
defendant must make a timely motion for a new trial. MCR 2.611(A)(1)(e); People v Winters,
225 Mich App 718, 729; 571 NW2d 764 (1997). Where a defendant has failed to preserve this
issue on appeal, this Court will decline to address it. Id.
Even if defendant had preserved the issue, the record does not support his claim. The
other witnesses presented strong evidence of defendant’s guilt. The jury performed its function
of resolving disputed questions of fact when it rejected defendant’s claim that he acted in selfdefense. The evidence does not preponderate heavily against the verdict, and allowing the
verdict to stand is not a miscarriage of justice. People v Lemmon, 456 Mich 625, 627; 576
NW2d 129 (1998).
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
-1-
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.
