PEOPLE OF MI V KIM STEPHEN ELMER

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED October 3, 1997 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 178598 Newaygo Circuit Court LC No. 94-005668-FC KIM STEPHEN ELMER, Defendant-Appellant. Before: Bandstra, P.J., and Murphy and Young, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right from his conviction by jury of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree (CSC I) in violation of MCL 750.520b(1)(a); MSA 28.788(2)(1)(a). He was sentenced to fifteen to thirty years’ imprisonment. We affirm. First, defendant claims that the trial court erred by admitting other acts evidence in violation of MRE 404(b). Specifically, defendant challenges the admission of the prosecutor’s exhibit one and certain testimony of Jeremy Heemstra. Defendant did not object to Heemstra’s testimony, therefore, the challenge is unpreserved. Additionally, defendant’s challenge to exhibit one on 404(b) grounds is unpreserved because defendant did not object at trial on such grounds. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that even if the trial court erred in admitting the evidence, any error was harmless in light of the properly admitted evidence. Next, defendant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. There is a strong presumption t at defendant was afforded effective assistance of counsel. People v Hampton, 176 h Mich App 383, 385; 439 NW2d 365 (1989). Our review of the trial and Ginther hearing transcripts leads us to conclude that defendant has failed to overcome this presumption. Defense counsel testified that several of the alleged errors were tactical decisions. We will not second guess decisions of trial strategy. People v Caballero, 184 Mich App 636, 640; 459 NW2d 80 (1990). Also, in light of the evidence presented, we do not think that there is a reasonable probability that but for any of the alleged errors of counsel, the outcome would have been different. See People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 309, 326-327; 521 NW2d 797 (1994). -1­ Finally, defendant challenges the scoring of the sentencing guidelines. We have reviewed defendant’s claims and do not consider them to state a cognizable claim for relief. See People v Mitchell, 454 Mich 145, 178; 560 NW2d 600 (1997). Affirmed. /s/ Richard A. Bandstra /s/ William B. Murphy /s/ Robert P. Young, Jr. -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.