PEOPLE OF MI V MARCUS RICARDO EDWARD
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
February 17, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 243842
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 02-000365-01
MARCUS RICARDO EDWARD,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Schuette, P.J., and Meter and Owens, 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, MCL 769.10, to seven to fifteen years in prison.
We affirm.
Defendant’s sole claim on appeal is that the trial court erred in failing to sua sponte
instruct the jury regarding prior inconsistent statements by two prosecution witnesses. Not only
did defendant fail to preserve this issue by requesting the omitted instruction or objecting to the
instructions given, People v Gonzalez, 468 Mich 636, 642-643; 664 NW2d 159 (2003), he
waived any error when his attorney expressed satisfaction with the instructions given by the
court. People v Ortiz, 249 Mich App 297, 311; 642 NW2d 417 (2002); People v Tate, 244 Mich
App 553, 559; 624 NW2d 524 (2001). In any event, the instruction was not applicable to witness
MacPherson because his prior testimony was not inconsistent. Moreover, defendant failed to
show that the jury would have likely accepted his defense of duress if the instruction had been
given as to witness Kas-Marogi. Finally, defendant has not established that he was denied the
effective assistance of counsel because he has not shown there was a reasonable likelihood of
acquittal if the instruction had been given. Ortiz, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Bill Schuette
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-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.
