PEOPLE OF MI V DENNIS WAYNE KURTS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
April 17, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 274676
Jackson Circuit Court
LC No. 04-000365-FH
DENNIS WAYNE KURTS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Wilder, P.J., and Murphy and Meter, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his bench trial convictions of operating a motor vehicle
while intoxicated, third offense, MCL 257.625(1) and (9), operating a motor vehicle with a
schedule 1 controlled substance in his body, MCL 257.625(8), and operating a motor vehicle
with a suspended or revoked license, MCL 257.904. At sentencing, the trial court vacated the
conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a schedule 1 controlled substance in the body. We
affirm defendant’s convictions.
This case was previously addressed in an interlocutory appeal filed by the prosecution,
culminating in our Supreme Court’s ruling in People v Derror, 475 Mich 316; 715 NW2d 822
(2006).1 The Supreme Court stated:
In these consolidated appeals, we are called upon to determine whether
11-carboxy-THC, a “metabolite” or byproduct of metabolism created when the
body breaks down THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), the psychoactive ingredient of
marijuana, is a schedule 1 controlled substance under MCL 333.7212 of the
Public Health Code. We hold that it is. Thus, a person operating a motor vehicle
with 11-carboxy-THC in his or her system may be prosecuted under MCL
257.625(8), which prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle with any amount of a
schedule 1 controlled substance in the body. [Derror, supra at 319-320.]
Constitutional issues raised by defendant were rejected by the Supreme Court. Id. at 334341.
1
Defendant’s case was consolidated with Derror.
-1-
Here, defendant first argues that carboxy THC, a metabolite of marijuana with no
pharmacologic effects, is not a schedule 1 controlled substance for purposes of a prosecution
under MCL 257.625(8) and that MCL 333.7106, which defines marijuana, is unconstitutionally
vague and overbroad. As recognized by defendant, our Supreme Court has already addressed
and rejected these arguments during the interlocutory appeal, and the law of the case doctrine
bars further consideration of the issues on our part. See Grievance Administrator v Lopatin, 462
Mich 235, 259-260; 612 NW2d 120 (2000). Outside the law of the case doctrine, we are of
course likewise bound by the Supreme Court’s holding addressing the issues raised by defendant.
Boyd v W G Wade Shows, 443 Mich 515, 523; 505 NW2d 544 (1993), overruled on other
grounds Karaczewski v Farbman Stein & Co, 478 Mich 28, 30; 732 NW2d 56 (2007). We also
note that the trial court vacated the conviction under MCL 257.625(8); therefore, the issue would
appear to be moot. People v Briseno, 211 Mich App 11, 17; 535 NW2d 559 (1995).
Defendant next argues that during his cross-examination, the prosecutor improperly
asked defendant to comment on the credibility of a police officer who testified for the
prosecution. Defendant failed to raise this issue below; therefore, our review is for plain error
affecting substantial rights. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). We
find it unnecessary to determine whether the line of questioning was improper because, assuming
error, defendant was not prejudiced given the nature of the harmless questioning and the strength
of the evidence, especially considering that this was a bench trial. People v Garfield, 166 Mich
App 66, 79; 420 NW2d 124 (1988) (trial judge is presumed to know the law). Accordingly,
reversal is unwarranted.
A remaining issue relating to the assessment of attorney fees has been rendered moot as
the fee has been paid.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ William B. Murphy
/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.
