STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 18, 2010
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 293461
Kalamazoo Circuit Court
LC No. 2008-001948-FH
MICHAEL LEE NUYEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: M. J. KELLY, P.J., and K. F. KELLY and BORRELLO, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right from his conviction by a jury trial of two counts of criminal
sexual conduct in the third degree (CSC III). MCL 750.520d(1)(a). The trial court sentenced
defendant to two concurrent prison terms of 95 months to 15 years. Because we conclude that
there were no errors warranting relief, we affirm.
Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in admitting into
evidence two letters written by the victim while she was undergoing counseling. One letter was
addressed to defendant and the other to the victim’s parents. We review a trial court’s decision
to admit evidence for an abuse of discretion. People v Stamper, 480 Mich 1, 4; 742 NW2d 607
(2007). A trial court abuses its discretion when it makes a decision that is not within the range of
reasonable and principled outcomes. People v Yost, 278 Mich App 341, 353; 749 NW2d 753
(2008).
Defendant’s trial counsel objected to the admission of the letters on the grounds that they
were inadmissible hearsay. See MRE 801; MRE 802. The trial court admitted the letters under
the exception to the hearsay rule stated under MRE 803(3). This exception provides that a
statement of a then existing mental, emotional, or physical condition is not excluded by the
hearsay rule:
A statement of the declarant’s then existing state of mind, emotion,
sensation, or physical condition (such as intent, plan, motive, design, mental
feeling, pain, and bodily health), but not including a statement of memory or
belief to prove the fact remembered or believed unless it relates to the execution,
revocation, identification, or terms of declarant’s will.
-1-
The victim’s letter to defendant in significant measure related her feelings toward him
resulting from the prolonged sexual abuse. The letter contained statements concerning: how
defendant negatively impacted her life; how she felt angry, confused, worthless, and unlovable;
how she felt responsible for defendant’s actions; and how she felt afraid and concerned that
defendant would victimize other children. The second letter spoke of her anxiety on the one-year
anniversary of the incident that served as the basis of the charges and included similar statements
about her feelings. The statements included: how she was happy about never having to be hurt
again; how she was really upset on July 3 because of the fear that defendant would appear next to
her; and how she felt bad because of her inability to protect other kids. Although these letters
clearly included statements that defendant actually sexually abused the victim, which statements
could not be used to prove that defendant did in fact sexually abuse her, MRE 803(3), the letters
were properly admissible to the extent that they related victim’s then existing state of mind
resulting from the sexual abuse. People v Fisher, 449 Mich 441, 449-451; 537 NW2d 577
(1995). And the victim’s state of mind during her counseling was relevant to determining
whether the victim’s account of events was credible—that is, they were relevant to determine
whether she falsely accused defendant to avoid the consequences of her own problematic
behavior. Consequently, the letters were admissible for a proper purpose. See Yost, 278 Mich
App at 355 (noting that evidence that is inadmissible for one purpose may nevertheless be
admissible for another purpose with a limiting instruction).
Finally, even if we were to conclude that the trial court erred when it admitted these
letters, we would nevertheless conclude that any error was harmless. Defendant’s trial counsel
did not object to the admission of a third letter in which the victim described her sexual history
with defendant at length. In this letter, the victim also made statements accusing defendant of
having sexually abused her. Given that the other two letters were merely cumulative to the third
letter and were largely confined to the victim’s feelings about the abuse, we conclude that any
error in the admission of these letters did not affect the outcome. People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484,
495-496; 596 NW2d 607 (1999).
There were no errors warranting relief.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
-2-
