PEOPLE OF MI V JEFFREY THOMPKINS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 15, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 245501
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 02-001601
JEFFREY THOMPKINS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Neff, P.J., and Zahra and Murray, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right from a nonjury conviction of carrying a concealed weapon,
MCL 750.227, for which he was sentenced to one year’s probation. We affirm.
Defendant’s sole claim on appeal is that he was denied a fair trial due to judicial bias.
Defendant did not raise any objection below and thus the issue has not been preserved for appeal.
People v Paquette, 214 Mich App 336, 340; 543 NW2d 342 (1995). Therefore, defendant must
establish plan error that affected the outcome of the trial. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763764; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).
Defendant contends that the court improperly interfered with his cross-examination.
While the court may question witnesses to clarify their testimony or elicit additional relevant
information, it must avoid assuming a prosecutorial role and “exercise caution so that its
questions will not be intimidating, argumentative, prejudicial, unfair, or partial.” People v
Sterling, 154 Mich App 223, 228; 397 NW2d 182 (1986). The record shows that the court did
not question any witnesses at trial or otherwise attempt to limit defendant’s cross-examination of
the prosecution’s witnesses.
Defendant also contends that “the court interfered unreasonably with efforts by the
defense to demonstrate that the failure to preserve the gun for fingerprints was a violation of
standard operating procedure.” A review of the transcript shows that defense counsel did not ask
the officers any such questions. In fact, defendant seems to claim that the judge acted
improperly because he failed to ask such questions of the officers himself. Defendant’s “failure
to cite any authority in support of this novel proposition precludes . . . appellate review.” Sowels
v Laborers’ Int’l Union of North America, 112 Mich App 616, 624; 317 NW2d 195 (1981).
-1-
The only affirmative act of the court cited by defendant and verified by the record is the
trial court’s finding that the officers’ testimony was credible and defendant’s testimony was not.
Given that a judge who conducts a nonjury trial “has the duty to weigh the testimony and assess
the credibility of the witnesses,” People v Snell, 118 Mich App 750, 755; 325 NW2d 563 (1982),
and “must make specific findings of fact and state conclusions of law,” People v Shields, 200
Mich App 554, 558; 504 NW2d 711 (1993), the court cannot be said to have acted improperly by
fulfilling these responsibilities.
Affirmed.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-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.
