PEOPLE OF MI V MICHAEL CURRIE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
October 11, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 234933
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 00-012566
MICHAEL CURRIE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr. and Cavanagh, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of felonious assault, MCL 750.82,1 and
was sentenced to a three-year probationary term with the first six months to be served in the
county jail. He appeals as of right. We affirm.
This case arises from an incident where defendant and complainant engaged in oral sex
and vaginal intercourse. Complainant asserted that she was sexually assaulted at knifepoint,
while defendant asserted that the sexual intercourse was consensual and for money. During the
sexual intercourse, complainant stabbed defendant with a knife. Complainant testified that she
stabbed defendant in an attempt to escape, and defendant testified that complainant stabbed him
because he refused her demand for more money. After the stabbing, defendant swung a board at
complainant, causing her to put her arm through a window. Complainant testified that defendant
hit her with the board, while defendant indicated in his statement to police that he swung the
board at complainant but did not remember whether he hit her.
At trial, defense counsel impeached the complainant with prior inconsistent statements
she made to police and at the preliminary examination. Defendant does not specify which
particular prior inconsistent statements are of concern to him, but merely cites page numbers
where impeachment with prior inconsistent statements occurred. A review of the transcript
reveals that prior inconsistent statements were used to impeach complainant on seven occasions.
First, complainant testified at trial that defendant offered her a ride home. Defense counsel
impeached her with her testimony at the preliminary examination, where she said that she asked
1
Defendant was originally charged with four counts of first degree criminal sexual conduct,
MCL 750.520b(1)(e), and one count each of assault with intent to murder, MCL 750.83, and
felonious assault, MCL 750.82.
-1-
defendant for a ride home. Second, complainant testified at trial that the duration of the oral sex
was three or four minutes. Defense counsel again impeached her with her testimony at the
preliminary examination, where she testified that it lasted ten to fifteen minutes. Finally, on five
other occasions, defense counsel impeached complainant by pointing out that portions of her
testimony at trial included facts that were not included in her police report. The trial judge failed
to instruct the jury that the prior inconsistent statements were only to be used to impeach
complainant’s credibility, not to be used as substantive evidence of defendant’s guilt. There was
no objection to this failure on the record.
Defendant argues that the failure of the judge to instruct the jury on the limited use of
prior inconsistent statements constituted error mandating reversal. He argues that as a result of
the failure to give a limiting instruction, the jurors in this case might have used these prior
inconsistent statements as substantive evidence of defendant’s guilt; therefore, defendant was
denied a fair trial. We disagree.
Defendant did not object on the record to the instructional failure. However, a criminal
defendant may obtain relief based upon an unpreserved error if the error is plain and affected
substantial rights in that it affected the outcome of the proceedings, and it either resulted in the
conviction of an innocent person or seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation
of the proceedings. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764; 597 NW2d 130 (1999); People v
Nash, 244 Mich App 93, 97; 625 NW2d 87 (2000). The instructional error did not pertain to a
basic and controlling issue in the case and, therefore, defendant’s substantial rights were not
affected.
The elements of felonious assault are 1) an attempted battery, or an act that caused
complainant to reasonably fear an immediate battery, 2) intent to injure complainant or place
complainant in reasonable fear of a battery, 3) present ability to commit a battery, or belief by
defendant that he has the ability to commit battery, and 4) commission of the assault with a
dangerous weapon. CJI2d 17.9. Because defendant’s felonious assault conviction was based on
the portion of the incident where defendant assaulted complainant with a board, neither of the
prior inconsistent statements had bearing on a basic or controlling issue in this case. The
discrepancies between complainant’s trial court statements and her preliminary examination
statements were minor and not relevant to the crime for which defendant was convicted, and
even if the jury used these particular prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence, the
statements did not affect the fairness of the trial.
Additionally, MCR 2.613(A) provides:
[A]n error or defect in anything done or omitted by the court or by the
parties is not ground for granting a new trial, for setting aside a verdict, or for
vacating, modifying, or otherwise disturbing a judgment or order, unless refusal to
take this action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice.
Similarly, MCL 769.26 provides:
No judgment or verdict shall be set aside or reversed or a new trial be
granted by any court of this state in any criminal case, on the ground of
misdirection of the jury . . . unless in the opinion of the court, after an
-2-
examination of the entire cause, it shall affirmatively appear that the error
complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice.
The insignificance and irrelevance of the prior inconsistent statements with regard to the
felonious assault conviction means the failure of the court to instruct the jury on the proper use
of the statements was not inconsistent with substantial justice, MCR 2.613(A), nor did the error
result in a miscarriage of justice, MCL 769.26.
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
-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.
