in Re Da'veon Dinwiddie, 330583

Minor Da’Veon Dinwiddie was adjudicated responsible for assault and battery; the court placed him on probation and ordered Clinic for Child Study recommendations (individual counseling, anger management, and IEP development).
At trial, the alleged victim made an in‑court identification of Dinwiddie; there was no pretrial photographic or lineup identification introduced.
Defense counsel expressly declined to object to the in‑court identification during trial.
The victim’s statements to a treating physician mentioned "several students"; mother’s police report listed two possible suspects by first name.
The trial court credited the victim’s in‑court identification and relied on witness testimony in making its disposition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the victim's in‑court identification was unduly suggestive	Identification was admissible; trial court did not err in crediting testimony	In‑court ID was suggestive (defendant sat at defense table; victim initially said no; doctor said "several students"; no pretrial ID; no independent basis)	Waived for review (counsel declined to object); reviewed for plain error and none found; ID was admissible and credible
Whether an independent basis was required for in‑court ID	Not required absent a tainted pretrial ID	An independent basis was lacking because no pretrial ID occurred	No independent‑basis showing required because there was no suggestive pretrial procedure
Whether absence of pretrial corroboration prejudiced defendant	Remaining evidence (victim ID and testimony) sufficed to support finding	Lack of pretrial ID meant suppression would leave no evidence	Court held positive in‑court ID can suffice; no prejudice shown
Whether conflicting statements ("several students") undermined ID reliability	Weight for credibility is for the trier of fact	Inconsistent statements rendered ID unreliable	Court deferred to trial court’s credibility determinations and affirmed

Peterman v. State Dept. of Natural Resources, 446 Mich. 177 (holding failure to timely object preserves nothing for appellate review)
People v. McCray, 245 Mich. App. 631 (failure to object to in‑court identification is unpreserved)
People v. Carter, 462 Mich. 206 (distinguishing waiver from forfeiture; counsel’s intentional relinquishment can foreclose appellate review)
People v. Harris, 261 Mich. App. 44 (standard for reviewing admission of identification evidence)
People v. Roscoe, 303 Mich. App. 633 (plain‑error review where issue is unpreserved)
People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (three‑part Carines plain‑error test)
People v. Solomon, 47 Mich. App. 208 (in‑court identifications and one‑person showups are not per se unconstitutional)
People v. Colon, 233 Mich. App. 295 (suggestive procedure alone does not automatically render identification constitutionally defective)
People v. Laidlaw, 169 Mich. App. 84 (independent‑basis requirement arises only when pretrial ID is tainted)
People v. Ericksen, 288 Mich. App. 192 (trial court is the arbiter of witness credibility)
People v. Stevens, 306 Mich. App. 620 (appellate courts defer to trial court’s weighing of evidence)
People v. Davis, 241 Mich. App. 697 (positive witness identification may suffice to support conviction)

Affirmed.