PEOPLE OF MI V JOSEPH LEE STRINGER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
December 8, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 216578
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 98-000527
JOSEPH STRINGER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Bandstra, C.J., and Fitzgerald and D. B. Leiber*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right from a jury conviction of assault with intent to do great
bodily harm less than murder, MCL 750.84; MSA 28.279, for which he was sentenced as an
habitual offender third, MCL 769.11; MSA 28.1083, to seven to twenty years in prison. We
affirm.
Defendant first contends that the trial court erred when it precluded him from asking the
complainant if he sold drugs or if his home was subsequently padlocked by the city. We review
this issue for an abuse of discretion. People v Gould, 225 Mich App 79, 88; 570 NW2d 140
(1997). The evidence was not relevant for the purpose for which it was offered because it did not
permit a reasonable inference that someone else committed the crime, People v Brooks, 453
Mich 511, 519; 557 NW2d 106 (1996); People v Helcher, 14 Mich App 386, 390; 165 NW2d
669 (1968), and thus was properly excluded. MRE 401; MRE 402. Evidence that the
complainant operated a crack house may have been relevant to support defendant’s claim that he
went to confront the complainant about that activity, but defendant himself offered such
testimony, which was supported by another witness’ testimony that the complainant and others
had been using cocaine. Therefore, even if the court should have admitted the evidence for that
purpose, the error was not outcome determinative and does not justify relief. People v Lukity,
460 Mich 484, 495-496; 596 NW2d 607 (1999).
Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in failing to give a limiting instruction
on the use of a witness’ prior inconsistent statement. We review claims of instructional error de
novo. People v Hubbard (After Remand), 217 Mich App 459, 487; 552 NW2d 493 (1996).
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
Because defendant did not request a limiting instruction, the prosecutor did not suggest to the
jury that the prior inconsistent statement could be used as substantive evidence, and defendant
has not demonstrated that the omission was prejudicial to the extent that it affected the outcome
of the trial, defendant is not entitled to relief for this unpreserved claim of error. People v
Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764; 597 NW2d 130 (1999); People v Stanton, 190 Mich App 558,
562-563; 476 NW2d 477 (1991).
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Dennis B. Leiber
-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.