People of Michigan v. Ashmay Rodriguez, 330892

Defendant Ashmay Rodriguez was convicted by a jury of sexual penetration without informing the partner he was HIV positive, in violation of MCL 333.5210(1), arising from a sexual encounter with a 16‑year‑old neighbor.
At trial the parties stipulated that defendant was HIV positive; the factfinder’s primary contested element was whether defendant informed the victim of his HIV status.
The prosecutor’s opening statement said police checked unspecified “records” that showed defendant was HIV positive after defendant told an investigator he was “clean.”
Rodriguez moved for a mistrial, arguing the prosecutor’s comment improperly referenced criminal history/offender registry; the trial court denied the motion.
The jury credited the victim’s testimony that defendant did not disclose his HIV status over defendant’s denial and related witnesses; defendant was sentenced as a third‑offense habitual offender to 3–8 years.
Rodriguez appealed, contending the mistrial denial was an abuse of discretion and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of mistrial for prosecutor’s opening statement was abuse of discretion	Prosecutor argued comment was contextual and not emphasized; any prejudice cured by jury instructions	Statement implied use of prior criminal/offender records and prejudiced jury; mistrial needed	No abuse of discretion; statement was fleeting, not emphasized, and plausibly referred to medical records; jury instructions cured any prejudice
Whether evidence was sufficient to prove failure to inform HIV status element of MCL 333.5210(1)	Victim testified defendant did not disclose status; jury may resolve credibility against defendant	Defendant testified he told victim twice; brother and nephew corroborated one disclosure	Evidence sufficient; jury credited victim’s testimony and credibility determinations are for the jury

People v. Dennis, 464 Mich 567 (Michigan 2001) (standard of review for mistrial denial is abuse of discretion)
People v. Waclawski, 286 Mich App 634 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (mistrial required only when error prejudices defendant’s right to fair trial)
People v. Lumsden, 168 Mich App 286 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988) (mistrial warranted only for egregious error not curable in other ways)
People v. Lane, 308 Mich App 38 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (prosecutor’s intent and emphasis are relevant to mistrial analysis)
People v. Meissner, 294 Mich App 438 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (de novo review for sufficiency of the evidence)
People v. Robinson, 475 Mich 1 (Mich. 2006) (review of evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution)
People v. Eisen, 296 Mich App 326 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (deference to jury credibility determinations)
People v. Abraham, 256 Mich App 265 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003) (presumption jurors follow curative jury instructions)