PEOPLE OF MI V ERIC ALLEN HAPEMAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
March 15, 2007
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 267039
Barry Circuit Court
LC No. 04-100161-FC
ERIC ALLEN HAPEMAN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Servitto, P.J., and Talbot and Schuette, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct
(CSC), MCL 750.520b(1)(a), and one count of second-degree CSC, MCL 750.520c(1)(a), for
sexually assaulting his younger stepbrother, who was 11 years old at the time of trial. He was
sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 12 to 20 years each for the first-degree CSC convictions
and 8 to 15 years for the second-degree CSC conviction. He appeals as of right. We affirm.
This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendant argues on appeal that the jury’s verdicts were against the great weight of the
evidence. We disagree.
“This Court reviews for an abuse of discretion the trial court’s denial of a motion for a
new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence.” People v
McCray, 245 Mich App 631, 637; 630 NW2d 633 (2001). A verdict is against the great weight
of the evidence if the evidence preponderates so heavily against the verdict that it would be a
miscarriage of justice to allow the verdict to stand. People v Musser, 259 Mich App 215, 218219; 673 NW2d 800 (2003).
“Conflicting testimony, even when impeached to some extent, is an
insufficient ground for granting a new trial.” People v Lemmon, 456 Mich 625,
647; 576 NW2d 129 (1998). “[U]nless it can be said that directly contradictory
testimony was so far impeached that it ‘was deprived of all probative value or that
the jury could not believe it,’ or contradicted indisputable physical facts or defied
physical realities, the trial court must defer to the jury’s determination.” Id. at
645-646 (citation omitted). [Musser, supra at 219.]
-1-
Defendant argues that the jury’s verdict was against the great weight of the evidence
because: (1) there was evidence suggesting that the victim had a motive to fabricate the charges,
primarily because he did not like his stepfather; (2) there was evidence that the victim and his
sisters, particularly his older sister, were trying to disrupt the family by exaggerating complaints
of abuse; (3) the victim’s mother complained to a counselor that her children often lied; (4) there
was evidence that the victim was an angry and aggressive child before he claimed that defendant
began abusing him; (5) there was no evidence to support the victim’s claim that he told his
mother and stepfather about the abuse; (6) although a family caseworker had a strong rapport
with the victim, he never disclosed the abuse to her; (7) an open vent in the upstairs bedroom
where the abuse allegedly occurred enabled the victim’s mother and stepfather to hear everything
that happened in the bedroom, and his stepfather was a light sleeper; (8) it was unlikely that the
victim would allow himself to be abused because he did not fear physical confrontations with his
siblings; and (9) defendant denied the victim’s allegations and was quite upset by them.
We agree with the trial court that the jury’s verdict was not against the great weight of the
evidence. As the court observed, the case came down to a question of the victim’s credibility.
Despite the behavioral problems the victim had and his poor relationship with his stepfather
(giving him a possible motive to fabricate the allegations), the victim’s testimony was not so far
impeached that it would be a miscarriage of justice to allow the verdict to stand. Moreover, there
was no physical evidence that contradicted the jury’s verdict. For these reasons, the trial court
did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a new trial. Lemmon, supra;
Musser, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Deborah A. Servitto
/s/ Michael J. Talbot
/s/ Bill Schuette
-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.
