Case Name: PEOPLE v. PUROLL
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1992-07-20
Citations: 195 Mich. App. 170
Docket Number: Docket No. 133335
Parties: PEOPLE v PUROLL
Judges: Before: Doctoroff, C.J., and Michael J. Kelly and R. B. Burns, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 195
Pages: 170–173

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v PUROLL
Docket No. 133335.
Submitted March 3, 1992, at Grand Rapids.
Decided July 20, 1992, at 10:00 a.m.
Walter L. Puroll was convicted by a jury in the Antrim Circuit Court, Charles M. Forester, J., of second-degree criminal sexual conduct. The defendant appealed, claiming error in the admission of testimony concerning a subsequent alleged act of sexual conduct between him and the victim, members of the same household, and in the court’s failure to give a limiting instruction with respect to that testimony.
The Court of Appeals held:
Evidence of subsequent similar sexual assaults by a defendant against a victim is admissible where the defendant and the victim are members of the same household. The question whether a limiting instruction should have been given was not preserved for appellate review.
Affirmed.
Michael J. Kelly, J., dissenting, stated that the subsequent act alleged by the victim does not qualify as a second uncharged act of sexual abuse and that, accordingly, the repeated references to it by the prosecution was error requiring reversal.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey Solicitor General, Charles H. Koop, Prosecuting Attorney, and J. Ronald Kaplansky, Assistant Attorney General, for the people.
Gregory G. Justis, for the defendant.
Before: Doctoroff, C.J., and Michael J. Kelly and R. B. Burns, JJ.
Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
R. B. Burns, J.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of second-degree criminal sexual conduct involving a member of his household. MCL 750.520c(l)(a); MSA 28.788(3)(l)(a). On September 10, 1990, defendant was sentenced to 2 Vi to 15 years' imprisonment and now appeals as of right. We affirm.
Defendant first argues that the trial court erred in admitting the victim's testimony regarding a subsequent sexual act between defendant and the victim. We disagree. People v DerMartzex, 390 Mich 410; 213 NW2d 97 (1973); People v Dreyer, 177 Mich App 735; 442 NW2d 764 (1989). Further, MRE 404(b) specifically provides for the admission of evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts that occurred after the conduct at issue in the case. Contrast, however, FRE 404, which does not contain language specifically allowing for the admission of evidence of subsequent acts.
Defendant next argues that the trial court erred in failing to give the jury a limiting instruction regarding the evidence of the subsequent sexual act between defendant and the victim. However, defendant failed to request such a limiting instruction and failed to object to the. jury instructions as given. Therefore, this issue is not preserved for appellate review. People v Livery Clark, 172 Mich App 407, 417; 432 NW2d 726 (1988).
Affirmed.
Doctoroff, C.J., concurred.