People v. Mitchell

This case is before us for the second time. In the original opinion, the panel held that reversal was required because the trial court refused defendant’s request for a limiting instruction regarding defendant’s testimony of his involvement in uncharged offenses. People v Mitchell, 223 Mich App 395; 566 NW2d 312 (1997). The prosecution applied for leave to appeal,1 and our Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave, remanded to this Court “for reconsideration in light of People v Mateo, 453 Mich 203 [551 NW2d 891] (1996), and People v Grant, 445 Mich 535 [520 NW2d 123] (1994). People v…