PEOPLE OF MI V TIMOTHY EARL DOTY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 27, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 224667
Ionia Circuit Court
LC No. 99-011492-FH
TIMOTHY EARL DOTY,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Whitbeck, P.J., and Neff and Hoekstra, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant Timothy Doty appeals as of right his jury conviction for second-degree home
invasion.1 We affirm.
I. Basic Facts And Procedural History
Doty admitted that he broke into the home Robert and Vicki Irish shared while no one
was present. He took several pieces of their personal property, including a large television,
stereo speakers, compact disks, and a tool box. Also, evidently, he moved a number of items in
the home and dumped trash on the floor. At the time, Robert and Vicki Irish were having both
personal and financial troubles. In fact, Robert Irish and his daughter had stayed with Doty and
his wife for a period after Vicki Irish obtained a personal protection order barring him from their
home.
At trial, Doty said that Robert Irish had agreed to pay $225 each month for rent and meals
at his (Doty’s) home. Doty claimed that he took the items from the Irish’s home because Robert
Irish owed him $1,000 for unpaid rent that had accumulated over the course of several months.
Doty also said that he believed that he had a right to take items as payment for the rent and
thought that the television he took belonged to Robert Irish. Robert Irish conceded that he had
lived with Doty, but claimed that it was only for approximately one week after he moved out of
the home he had shared with his wife. He denied owing Doty any money for this stay or telling
Doty that he owned the television.
1
MCL 750.110a.
-1-
In order to establish that Robert Irish had stayed at his home for longer than one week,
Doty attempted to introduce his telephone bills at trial. Doty’s theory was that the bills would
demonstrate that Robert Irish had made calls from Doty’s telephone over an extended period,
suggesting that Robert Irish was in the house for an extended period. Doty’s wife was willing to
attribute specific calls listed on the bills to Robert Irish. The prosecutor objected to introducing
this evidence because it was hearsay and had not been authenticated. The prosecutor was,
however, willing to stipulate that Robert Irish owed the Dotys money for unpaid telephone calls.
The trial court allowed the defense to lay a foundation for the evidence though the defense
contended that the bills were self-authenticating business records. However in doing so, Doty’s
wife admitted that she was not present when some of the phone calls she claimed Robert Irish
made had been placed and, therefore, did not really know who placed the calls. The trial court
sustained the prosecutor’s objection and the jury subsequently convicted him.
Doty now contends that the trial court erred in excluding the bills from evidence and
thereby infringed his constitutional right to present a defense. In this case, he explains, that
defense was that he had a claim of right to the property he took from the Irish’s home.
II. Standard Of Review
We acknowledge that Doty frames this as a constitutional issue subject to review de
novo. However, in actuality, this is a routine evidentiary issue, meriting review for an abuse of
the trial court’s discretion.2
III. Relevance
MRE 803(6) allows the trial court to admit in evidence records of regularly conducted
activity as an exception to the hearsay rule. We have no reason to doubt that telephone bills are
compiled in the course of a regularly conducted business activity. With respect to these specific
telephone bills, we have no reason to suspect that they were untrustworthy to any degree.
However, even admissible evidence may be excluded if the evidence is not relevant.3
MRE 401 states that “‘[r]elevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the
existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or
less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Even though Doty’s testimony can be
interpreted to mean that he had a good faith belief that Robert Irish owed him money and that he
was entitled to take property from the Irish’s home to repay that debt, this was not a claim of
right defense. A claim of right defense relies on the defendant’s good faith belief that he was
taking his own property to which he was entitled to exercise possession.4 Doty did not assert that
he believed that he was removing his own property from the Irish’s home. These bills had no
potential to make this claim of right defense more or less probable. Thus, even though these bills
were generally admissible under MRE 803(6), they were properly excluded because they were
not relevant to the proceedings, regardless of Mrs. Doty’s personal knowledge of the individual
2
See People v Snider, 239 Mich App 393, 419; 608 NW2d 502 (2000).
3
See MRE 402.
4
See People v Pohl, 202 Mich App 203, 205; 507 NW2d 819 (1993).
-2-
calls at issue and the amount of money Robert Irish actually owed the Dotys. While the trial
court did not rely on this reasoning to exclude this evidence, we may affirm a trial court when it
reaches the correct result, albeit for an incorrect reason.5
Affirmed.
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
5
See Glazer v Lamkin, 201 Mich App 432, 437; 506 NW2d 570 (1993).
-3-
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.