PEOPLE OF MI V BRODRICK DARNELL DINKINS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 6, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 224372
St. Clair Circuit Court
LC No. 99-000742-FH
BRODRICK DARNELL DINKINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Doctoroff, P.J., and Wilder and Schmucker*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of delivery of less than fifty grams of cocaine, MCL
333.7401(2)(a)(iv), and was sentenced as a second-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.10, to
serve one to thirty years in prison. He appeals as of right, and we affirm. This appeal is being
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
On appeal, defendant contends that certain testimony of three police officers was
improper character evidence under MRE 404(b). Because defendant never objected at trial on
this specific basis, the issue is not properly preserved for appellate review. People v Aguwa, 245
Mich App 1, 6; 626 NW2d 176 (2001). Unpreserved claims of nonconstitutional error are
reviewed to determine whether plain error occurred affecting the defendant’s substantial rights.
People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764, 774; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).
Viewed in context, most of the challenged testimony was probative of the respective
officers’ familiarity with defendant during the surveillance period, and therefore was relevant to
the issues of identification and the res gestae of the offense. People v LaPorte, 103 Mich App
444, 448; 303 NW2d 222 (1981); People v Amison, 70 Mich App 70, 74; 245 NW2d 405 (1976).
Even though Detective Butts and Sergeant Szczesny’s testimony that their familiarity with
defendant arose out of contacts with him during their lengthy police careers was prejudicial,
because identification was an issue the probative value of the testimony outweighed its
prejudicial effect. See People v Gendron, 144 Mich App 509, 515; 376 NW2d 143 (1985); MRE
403. We also note that none of the challenged testimony concerned any prior bad acts or
criminal activities of defendant; therefore, defendant’s reliance on MRE 404(b) and the cases
analyzing that rule are inapposite. LaPorte, supra; People v Steiner, 136 Mich App 187, 196197; 355 NW2d 884 (1984).
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1-
In any event, even though the officers’ testimony was improper to some extent, we
conclude that the error was harmless given the weight and strength of the untainted evidence
establishing defendant’s guilt of the charged offense. People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484, 491-496;
596 NW2d 607 (1999); People v Snider, 239 Mich App 393, 419-420; 608 NW2d 502 (2000).
Reversal is only warranted when it affirmatively appears that it is more probable than not that the
error was outcome determinative. Lukity, supra at 495-496. Any error here was not outcome
determinative.
Affirmed.
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Chad C. Schmucker
-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.