PEOPLE OF MI V SUMMER MARLENE CARTER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
May 19, 2011
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 296242
Allegan Circuit Court
LC No. 09-016098-FH
SUMMER MARLENE CARTER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: HOEKSTRA, P.J., and MURRAY and M. J. KELLY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of second-degree home invasion, MCL
750.110a(3), and larceny in a building, MCL 750.360. The trial court sentenced defendant as an
habitual offender, second offense, MCL 769.10, to 30 months’ probation, with 120 days in jail
for the home invasion conviction and 90 days in jail for the larceny conviction. Defendant
appeals as of right. We affirm.
On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court erred in allowing Detective Mathis to
provide lay opinion testimony that the theft of the pills was committed by a person familiar to
Gerald and Tracy Carter. We disagree. We review a trial court’s evidentiary decisions for an
abuse of discretion. People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210, 216; 749 NW2d 272 (2008). A trial
court abuses its discretion when it selects an outcome that falls outside the range of reasonable
and principled outcomes. Id. at 217.
MRE 701 provides:
If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness’ testimony in the
form of opinions or inferences is limited to those opinions or inferences which are
(a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear
understanding of the witness’ testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.
We conclude that under the circumstances presented here the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in allowing Mathis to testify that it was “highly unlikely” that the person who stole the
pills was a person unfamiliar to the Carters. Mathis’s opinion was rationally based on his
perception of the incident that only 15 minutes passed from when Tracy Carter left the house to
when defendant arrived, that not all the medications and pills in the safe were taken, and that
-1-
other valuables from the safe remained. In addition, Mathis’s testimony was relevant to the
determination of the identity of the perpetrator.
Defendant also argues that the trial court erred in denying her motion for a directed
verdict because there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find that she lacked permission to
enter the house. We disagree. In reviewing a trial court’s decision on a motion for directed
verdict, we consider the evidence presented up to the time of the motion in the light most
favorable to the prosecutor and determine whether a rational trier of fact could find that the
essential elements of the crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Schultz, 246
Mich App 695, 702; 635 NW2d 491 (2001).
To be convicted of second-degree home invasion, one must enter a dwelling, either by
breaking or without permission. MCL 750.110a(3). Tracy Carter testified that defendant did not
have permission to enter the Carter house. Similarly, Gerald Carter testified that he would never
give defendant permission to be in the house unsupervised. Viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to the prosecutor, a rational trier of fact could find that defendant did not have
permission to enter the house. The trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for a
directed verdict.
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Michael J. 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.
