PEOPLE OF MI V EDWARD H KANE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
December 4, 2003
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 241584
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 01-010165
EDWARD H. KANE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Murray, P.J. and Gage and Kelly, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right his jury conviction on two counts of larceny by conversion,
MCL 750.362. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument under MCR
7.214(E).
On appeal, defendant asserts that he was denied a fair trial by the prosecutor’s comments
about other bad acts and his appeal to the jury’s civic duty. The test of prosecutorial misconduct
is whether the defendant was denied a fair and impartial trial. People v Watson, 245 Mich App
572, 586; 629 NW2d 411 (2001). Prosecutorial comments must be read as a whole and
evaluated in light of defense arguments and the relationship they bear to the evidence admitted at
trial. People v Schutte, 240 Mich App 713, 721; 613 NW2d 370 (2000). Appellate review of
allegedly improper conduct is precluded if the defendant fails to timely and specifically object,
and this Court will only review the defendant’s claim for plain error. Id., 720. Reversal is
warranted only when a plain error resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant or
seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.
Defendant has not established plain error. The evidence at trial showed suspicious
actions on the part of all the witnesses. The defense was that defendant did not take the money;
rather he solicited and transferred what would have been an illegal campaign contribution. The
prosecutor’s comments were appropriate in the context of the evidence presented.
Defendant also asserts that the court erred in making several evidentiary rulings. The
decision whether to admit evidence is within the discretion of the trial court and will not be
disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion People v Katt, 468 Mich 272, 278; 662 NW2d
12 (2003). Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it sustained the
prosecutor’s objection to a question to William Banacki, a real estate developer, whether one
way to make a campaign contribution anonymous is to use two separate accounts. Defendant
-1-
also asserts that the court abused its discretion in precluding him from testifying about what was
said to him by the giver of the money order. Finally, the court precluded defendant from
admitting evidence of planning commission minutes showing the basis for witness Paul Knuth’s
bias against him.
We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court. Although no grounds were stated for
the first objection, the question was phrased in a speculative manner. Counsel did not rephrase
the question, and the witness was not asked if he used two accounts in order to make the
contribution anonymous. The second ruling was based on hearsay. The trial court properly
ruled that defendant could not testify as to what another witness told him. MRE 801.
Furthermore, the declarant testified at trial, and defendant could have obtained his testimony
regarding what he said. Finally, the court acted within its discretion in limiting collateral
evidence to show Knuth’s bias against defendant. MRE 403; MCL 768.29. Where defendant
voted in favor of Knuth’s project, which was denied by the planning commission as a whole, the
evidence had minimal relevance.
Affirmed.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.