PEOPLE OF MI V STANLEY GENE DENHOF
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
December 14, 2010
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 287720
Kent Circuit Court
LC No. 08-003097-FC
STANLEY GENE DENHOF,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HOEKSTRA, P.J., and FITZGERALD and STEPHENS, JJ.
STEPHENS, J. (CONCURRING).
I concur in the majority’s well written opinion. I write separately only to address the
questions of the admission of the officer’s statements on the DVD. As the majority recognizes, a
witness may not comment on the credibility of another witness because issues of credibility are
reserved for the finder of fact. The prosecution asserts that the officer’s statements were not
intended to bolster the credibility of the victim, but were merely introduced to provide context
for defendant's statements and to demonstrate the effect that the statements had on defendant.
However, defendant’s statements did not cry out for contextualization much less require
admission of the officer’s statements regarding the veracity of the complainant and the strength
of the physical evidence. The probative value of the officer’s comments was minimal.
Furthermore, to the extent that there was a proper purpose for the admission of the officer’s
statements, I believe that testimony from a police officer has a great danger of being given undue
weight. It is natural for a juror who has had little or no exposure to criminal sexual conduct
matters to defer to the officer’s superior experience in analyzing evidence. Great care should be
taken to avoid the potential harm that the officer’s opinion can become the thirteenth juror.
Therefore, unlike the majority, I find that the admission of his statements was erroneous under
MRE 403. The cautionary instruction, however, is presumed to have been heeded and the
strength of the other evidence in this case renders this error not outcome determinative. People v
Callon, 256 Mich App 312, 329-330; 662 NW2d 501 (2003). Consequently, relief is not
warranted.
/s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens
-1-
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.