People of Michigan v. Anthony Ray McFarlane Jr
325 Mich. App. 507
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- Defendant Anthony McFarlane was convicted by a jury of first-degree child abuse for injuries suffered by his nine‑week‑old infant (KM) and sentenced to 15–25 years.
- Eyewitness KD (age 5) testified she observed defendant shake KM; medical experts described subdural hemorrhages and retinal hemorrhages consistent with violent shaking.
- Prosecution’s pediatric expert (Dr. Brown) testified the injuries were inflicted and labeled them “abusive head trauma” / "definite pediatric physical abuse." Defense experts disputed that diagnosis and causation.
- Trial evidence included contested testimony about a possible tibia fracture; defense used inconsistency to impeach prosecution experts.
- On appeal the Court affirmed the conviction (sufficiency of evidence upheld) but found sentencing errors requiring resentencing (OV 13 mis-scored). Court also addressed expert testimony limits and ineffective‑assistance claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to convict of 1st‑degree child abuse | Evidence (KD eyewitness, Dr. Brown’s opinions, injury timing/severity) proved defendant knowingly/intentionally caused serious physical harm | Evidence insufficient; reasonable alternative explanations exist; expert disagreement undermines causation/intent | Affirmed: viewing evidence favorably to prosecution, a rational jury could find elements beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Expert testimony alleged to invade the jury’s province (Dr. Brown’s label “abusive head trauma” / “child abuse”) | Expert can opine injuries were inflicted/nonaccidental based on medical evidence; such opinion helps jury | Labeling the injury as "abusive" or "child abuse" crosses into attributing culpable mental state and invades the jury’s role | Plain error in allowing Brown to use the label “abusive head trauma”/"child abuse," but error was harmless given other evidence; no new trial warranted |
| Ineffective assistance for failing to object to Dr. Brown and tibia‑fracture testimony | Defense counsel should have objected, preserving issues and preventing prejudice | Counsel reasonably pursued strategy (attack Brown’s credibility; exploit fracture ambiguity), so non‑objection was strategic | No ineffective assistance as to trial objections (strategy plausible); but counsel ineffective for failing to challenge OV13 at sentencing, requiring resentencing |
| Sentencing scoring (OV 3, OV 7, OV10, OV13) | Prosecution: OV3 (life‑threatening injury) and OV7 (excessive brutality) appropriately scored; OV10 and OV13 supported by records | Defendant: OV3/7/10/13 improperly scored; OV13 lacks record support (no 3rd felony against person) | OV3 and OV7 scores upheld (life‑threatening and excessive brutality support). OV10 upheld. OV13 was clearly erroneous; resentencing required with OV13 = 0 |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Roper, 286 Mich. App. 77 (evidence sufficiency standard and review)
- People v Maynor, 470 Mich. 289 (mental‑state requirement: must prove intent or knowledge to cause serious harm)
- People v Bynum, 496 Mich. 610 (limits on admissible expert testimony and abuse of discretion standard)
- People v Kowalski, 492 Mich. 106 (need for expert testimony when medical issues are beyond juror knowledge)
- People v Peterson, 450 Mich. 349 (danger of juries over‑relying on expert testimony and limits when experts vouch for ultimate issues)
- People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain‑error standard)
- People v Hardy, 494 Mich. 430 (standard for scoring offense variables and clear‑error review)
- People v Francisco, 474 Mich. 82 (ineffective assistance in failing to preserve sentencing‑guideline errors warrants resentencing)