People of Michigan v. Kerri Lynn Thorne
322 Mich. App. 340
Mich. Ct. App.2017Background
- Defendant (Kerri Thorne) took a $40 TITO (ticket-in/ticket-out) from a slot machine at Odawa Casino after the victim momentarily left to use the restroom; video showed the taking.
- Victim returned within minutes, discovered the missing TITO, and reported it to casino security; police were called and defendant eventually admitted taking the ticket after being shown surveillance.
- At trial defendant conceded taking the TITO but argued she honestly believed it was abandoned or lost based on prior interactions with casino staff and casino customs.
- A jury convicted defendant of larceny in a building (MCL 750.360); defendant appealed claiming (1) the TITO was not property "of another," (2) the trial court should have instructed on abandonment (or counsel was ineffective for not requesting that instruction), and (3) her right to testify was impaired when the court sustained an objection to testimony about a casino "bowl of tickets."
- The court evaluated possession (actual vs. constructive), the abandonment defense and ineffective-assistance standards, and whether excluded testimony chilled the right to testify; it affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the TITO "property of another" for larceny? | TITO remained victim's property/possession; momentary absence did not relinquish possession. | Ticket was abandoned or lost, so defendant (or anyone at the machine) had right to possess. | Held: TITO was property "of another"; victim retained actual/constructive possession or at least owner of lost property retained right to possession. |
| Should the jury have been instructed on abandoned property (or was counsel ineffective for not requesting it)? | Jury was properly instructed on larceny elements; instructions allowed consideration of defendant's belief; counsel's choices constitute trial strategy. | Counsel should have requested an abandonment instruction; failure denied fair consideration of defense. | Held: No reversible error; counsel’s omission was reasonable strategy and defendant was not prejudiced given instructions and strong evidence of guilt. |
| Did exclusion of testimony about a casino "bowl of tickets" deprive defendant of right to testify? | Exclusion did not prevent defendant from testifying or presenting her abandonment belief; no offer of proof was made and exclusion was harmless. | Testimony was relevant to show TITOs are commonly abandoned and would support honest-belief defense. | Held: No deprivation; exclusion (without offer of proof) was harmless because defendant testified about casino practice and evidence of guilt was strong. |
| Was defendant entitled to reversal under Morissette precedent regarding honest belief? | Morissette requires clear instruction that honest belief negates specific intent; defendant's honest belief warranted instruction. | Court distinguished Morissette because here the general larceny instructions allowed the jury to acquit on honest-belief grounds and the facts undercut an honest-belief claim. | Held: Morissette is distinguishable; no improper instruction and sufficient evidence to reject honest-belief claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. March, 499 Mich. 389 (Michigan Supreme Court) (defines larceny elements and "of another" as right to possess)
- People v. Cline, 276 Mich. App. 634 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (standards for appellate review)
- Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (U.S. Supreme Court) (honest belief that property is abandoned negates specific intent)
- People v. Holcomb, 395 Mich. 326 (Michigan Supreme Court) (honest belief as defense to specific intent crimes)
- People v. Riddle, 467 Mich. 116 (Michigan Supreme Court) (duty to give requested instruction supported by evidence)