PEOPLE OF MI V JAMES ELDRIDGE MOORE

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED January 21, 1997 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 174591 LC No. 93-008110 JAMES ELDRIDGE MOORE, JR., Defendant-Appellant. Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Reilly and C.D. Corwin,* JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right from his convictions of two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520d(1)(b); MSA 28.788(4). The trial court sentenced defendant to one and one­ half to fifteen years’ imprisonment on each count. We affirm. Defendant’s sole issue on appeal is that the trial court erred in refusing defense counsel’s request that it read CJI 2d 20.27 to the jury. Jury instructions are to be read as a whole rather than extracted piecemeal to establish error. Even if somewhat imperfect, there is no error if the instructions fairly presented the issues to be tried and sufficiently protected the defendant’s rights. People v Bell, 209 Mich App 273, 276; 530 NW2d 167 (1995). We find no error requiring reversal. As an initial matter, we note that the Michigan Criminal Jury Instructions do not have the official sanction of the Supreme Court. Their use is not required, and trial judges are encouraged to examine them carefully, in order to ensure their accuracy and appropriateness to the case at hand. People v Petrella, 424 Mich 221, 277; 380 NW2d 11 (1985). After carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court’s instructions to the jury fairly presented the issues to be tried and sufficiently protected the defendant’s rights. Bell, supra. The trial court instructed the jury that the prosecution had to prove all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court further instructed the jury that the prosecution had to prove that the sexual penetration was done without the consent of the victim. The trial court’s instructions included all * Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1­ elements of the charged offense and did not exclude material issues, defenses, or theories. People v Davis, 216 Mich App 47, 54; 549 NW2d 1 (1996). Accordingly, reversal is not required. Affirmed. /s/ Mark J. Cavanagh /s/ Maureen Pulte Reilly /s/ Charles D. Corwin -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.