PEOPLE OF MI V MICHAEL DARNELL MCCRAY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
February 6, 1998
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 192520
Lenawee Circuit Court
LC No. 94-006155-FH
MICHAEL DARNELL MCCRAY,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Michael J. Kelly, P.J., and Hood and Gribbs, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was found guilty by a jury of delivery of less than fifty grams of cocaine, MCL
333.7401(2)(a)(iv); MSA 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(iv), and thereafter pleaded guilty to habitual offender
second, MCL 769.10; MSA 28.1082. He was sentenced to five to thirty years’ imprisonment, and
now appeals as of right. We affirm.
Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in admitting, over objection, evidence of other
crimes. Specifically, a witness was permitted to testify that the defendant was owed money for drugs.
The evidence was presumably offered and admitted pursuant to MRE 404(b)(1), although that is not
clear from the record. Such evidence was highly probative of the issue of intent and its prejudicial effect
did not substantially outweigh its probative value. People v Mouat, 194 Mich App 482, 485; 487
NW2d 494 (1992). Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence.
People v Sawyer, 222 Mich App 1, 5; 564 NW2d 62 (1997). Although the prosecutor failed to give
the requisite notice of her intent to offer such evidence as required under People v VanderVliet, 444
Mich 52, 89; 508 NW2d 114 (1993), and MRE 404(b)(2), defendant did not object to the lack of
notice until the prosecutor elicited the same testimony from a subsequent witness. Given that plus the
fact that the evidence was relevant and not more prejudicial than probative, that it was not raised in
closing argument, and that defendant did not request a limiting instruction regarding the use of such
evidence, we cannot find that the lack of notice is grounds for a new trial. Compare People v Ullah,
216 Mich App 669, 676; 550 NW2d 568 (1996).
-1
Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in modifying CJI2d 5.4. A coefendant
admitted that he had been charged along with defendant and that he agreed to plead guilty and testify
against defendant in exchange for the dismissal of another, presumably unrelated controlled substance
charge pending against him. The trial court modified subsection (1)(c) to state that the codefendant had
been promised that he would not be prosecuted for another offense, as opposed to the instant offense,
but erroneously retained the language “the defendant is charged with committing.” Inasmuch as
defendant did not object to the instruction and it did not pertain to a basic and controlling issue in the
case, our failure to review the issue will not result in manifest injustice. People v Torres (On Remand),
222 Mich App 411, 423; 564 NW2d 149 (1997). To the extent defendant claims he was deprived of
effective assistance of counsel, he has failed to preserve the issue by raising it in the statement of
questions involved on appeal. People v Price, 214 Mich App 538, 548; 543 NW2d 49 (1995).
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ Roman S. Gribbs
-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.
