IN RE GRESS/UDELL MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of J.G. and C.U., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
July 23, 2002
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 238130
Macomb Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 99-048091-DE
NICOLE GRESS,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Gage, P.J., and Cavanagh and Wilder, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In this child protection proceeding, respondent appeals as of right from an order
adjudicating the minor children as being within the court’s jurisdiction pursuant to MCL
712A.2(b)(1) and (2), following a jury trial. We affirm.
Respondent argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by arguing, during closing
argument, that his witnesses were believable and that respondent was lying. Because respondent
did not object to the challenged remarks at trial, we review this unpreserved issue for plain error
affecting respondent’s substantial rights. Cf. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764; 597
NW2d 130 (1999); In re Trowbridge, 155 Mich App 785, 786; 401 NW2d 65 (1986) (applying
criminal concepts by analogy in a child protection proceeding).
“A prosecutor may not vouch for the credibility of a witness, nor suggest that the
government has some special knowledge that the witness is testifying truthfully.” People v
Howard, 226 Mich App 528, 548; 575 NW2d 16 (1997). However, a prosecutor may argue that
a witness is credible or that the defendant or another witness is not worthy of belief. Id. In this
case, the record reveals that the prosecutor’s arguments were based on the evidence presented at
trial. Plain error has not been shown.
Respondent also argues that the jury’s verdict was against the great weight of the
evidence. Respondent did not preserve this issue by raising it in an appropriate motion before
the trial court. See Buckeye Marketers, Inc v Finishing Services, Inc, 213 Mich App 615, 616617; 540 NW2d 757 (1995). Regardless, it is apparent that the verdict was clearly not against
the great weight of the evidence. See People v Lemmon, 456 Mich 625, 635-636; 576 NW2d
-1-
129 (1998). Although respondent denied the evidence against her, she failed to substantially
impeach the testimony of the other witnesses.
Affirmed.
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-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.
