People of Michigan v. Bryan Michael Rozengard
331140
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 2, 2017Background
- Defendant (19) had a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old; relationship discovered when victim’s mother found them in the victim’s bed. Defendant was charged with six counts of CSC-III and convicted after a consolidated jury trial.
- Evidence included Facebook and text-message exchanges; some messages predated the charged incidents but were admitted at trial.
- Defendant received concurrent sentences of 100 months to 15 years on each count and was placed on the sex-offender registry.
- Defendant raised multiple claims on appeal: inadequate notice of charges (overbroad time period), improper admission of certain Facebook messages, delay between arrest and arraignment (and related suppression argument), and trial counsel’s failure to seek a hearing on sex-offender registration eligibility.
- The prosecutor did not dispute that statutory criteria for an exemption from registration under MCL 28.722(w)(iv) applied (victim 13–15, consent, defendant within 4 years).
- Court affirmed convictions and sentences but remanded to order removal from the sex-offender registry because defendant was statutorily entitled to the registration exemption and the prosecutor did not contest it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to hearing / sex-offender registration exemption | Prosecution did not dispute that MCL 28.722(w)(iv) applied; no hearing required if uncontested | Trial counsel should have sought a hearing under MCL 28.723a(1) to avoid registration | Court: Defendant entitled to not register; remand to enter order removing him from registry; ineffective-assistance claim moot |
| Adequacy of notice (time period too broad) | Information satisfied MCL 767.45(1)(b); victim was 15 throughout period so time not material | Broad date range deprived ability to prepare defense; prejudicial | Court: No plain error; time not element in child-sex cases; no prejudice shown |
| Admission of Facebook messages outside charged dates | Messages were rebuttal responsive to defense suggestion about limited timeframe; prosecutor had no prior intent to offer them | Admission of April 23, 2014 messages was improper and prejudicial | Court: Admission within trial court’s discretion as rebuttal; even if error, not outcome determinative |
| Delay between arrest and arraignment / suppression | Delay prejudiced defendant; evidence from phone should be suppressed because he wasn’t promptly before magistrate | Arrest was for unrelated bond violation; phone seized from victim’s residence and later searched by warrant; delay unrelated to phone seizure | Court: No link shown between arraignment delay and seizure; suppression not warranted; no legal prejudice from delay |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Darden, 230 Mich. App. 597 (1998) (notice requirement analysis)
- People v. Chapo, 283 Mich. App. 360 (2009) (notice and preparation for defense)
- People v. Dobek, 274 Mich. App. 58 (2007) (time not material element in child-sex cases)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (1999) (plain-error review standard)
- People v. Putman, 309 Mich. App. 240 (2015) (counsel not required to make futile objections)
- People v. Figgures, 451 Mich. 390 (1996) (scope of rebuttal evidence)
- People v. Murphy (On Remand), 282 Mich. App. 571 (2009) (evidentiary rulings review)
- People v. Babcock, 469 Mich. 247 (2003) (abuse of discretion standard)
- People v. King, 297 Mich. App. 465 (2012) (outcome-determinative standard for evidentiary error)