PEOPLE OF MI V MICHAEL ALLEN ROCHELEAU
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 8, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 236377
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2000-172365-FC
MICHAEL ALLEN ROCHELEAU,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Griffin, P.J., and Gage and Meter, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right from a jury conviction of armed robbery, MCL 750.529, for
which he was sentenced as an habitual offender, third offense, MCL 769.11, to five to twenty
years in prison. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to
MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant’s sole claim on appeal is that the court erred in allowing the victim to testify
that he was so affected by the robbery he ultimately sold the store where it occurred. Defendant
never objected to the testimony at trial and thus has failed to preserve the issue for appeal. MRE
103(a)(1); People v Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101, 113; 631 NW2d 67 (2001), lv den 465 Mich
949 (2002). Therefore review is precluded unless defendant establishes plain error that affected
the outcome of the trial. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).
We find no error. The testimony was relevant under MRE 401. It was highly probative
to establish an element of the offense, namely that the victim was assaulted or placed in fear by
defendant’s actions. People v Randolph, __ Mich __; __ NW2d __ (Docket Nos. 117750,
118078, decided July 11, 2002), slip op at 17; Carines, supra at 757. Although damaging, the
probative value of the testimony was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair
prejudice. MRE 403; People v Meadows, 175 Mich App 355, 361; 437 NW2d 405 (1989). In
any event, it is highly unlikely that the evidence affected the outcome of the trial, given that the
-1-
critical issue was not whether an armed robbery had occurred but whether defendant was the
person who committed the offense.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-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.
