PEOPLE OF MI V CHRISTINE ANN MULLEN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 29, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 244700
Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 01-077566-FH
CHRISTINE ANN MULLEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and O’Connell and Donofrio, JJ.
O’CONNELL, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur with the majority opinion that defendant’s conviction should be affirmed. I
write separately to state that the trial court’s restitution order should not be vacated. The trial
court conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine if any restitution was due and the amount of
that restitution. Defendant was given the opportunity to present evidence and to cross-examine
witnesses. At the evidentiary hearing, expert witnesses were called, and the trial court
determined that restitution was due in the amount of $29,748. I would affirm the trial court’s
decision.
I conclude that the trial court would not have ordered restitution if it believed that simply
returning the computer servers was an adequate method of restitution. By proceeding with
expert testimony to determine the value of the computer servers, the trial court tacitly indicated
that simply returning the computer servers was an inadequate form of restitution. The reason for
conducting the restitution hearing was to determine the amount of restitution, if any, that was due
the victim in this case. Computer servers lose value rapidly. As the expert witness confirmed, a
new generation computer is valued significantly higher than a computer that has decreased in
value because of technological changes. In my opinion, the methodology used by the trial court
to determine the difference in the value of the new servers and the value on their date of return is
an adequate method to resolve the restitution issue. I would affirm the restitution decision of the
trial court.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
-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.