People of Michigan v. Cherria M Runnels-Karsiotis
328377
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 22, 2016Background
- Defendant (in-home caregiver) was tried by jury for fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-IV) for allegedly forcing a non-English-speaking, physically vulnerable client into a bathroom at night and committing sexual contact; acquitted of CSC-III.
- Victim testified by interpreter that defendant returned after her shift, forced her into the bathroom, locked the door, pushed her against a wall, kissed and touched her breasts and vaginal area, and used oral and digital contact.
- Physical and testimonial corroboration: bruises on the victim’s arms, contemporaneous reports to neighbor, supports coordinator, and police officer describing similar conduct.
- Trial court instructed the jury on presumption of innocence, that arguments are not evidence, and that defendant’s silence cannot be used against her; defendant received time served and probation.
- Defendant appealed claiming prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel (failure to object, investigate, or call witnesses/experts), that verdict was against the great weight of the evidence, and insufficient evidence for CSC-IV.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Runnels-Karsiotis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct — inflammatory language/appeal to sympathy | Prosecutor’s descriptions ("predator," "vulnerable victim") were reasonable argument based on evidence and theory; cured by jury instructions | Language denigrated defendant and appealed to jury sympathy, denying fair trial | No misconduct; remarks were reasonable characterization of evidence and instructions cured any prejudice |
| Prosecutorial vouching / witness rehabilitation | Proper to rehabilitate Detective Scofield after cross-examination and to argue victim’s credibility based on evidence | Prosecutor vouched for victim and suggested special knowledge of truthfulness | No improper vouching; rehabilitation and credibility argument permitted and based on trial evidence |
| Burden-shifting / comment on defendant not testifying | Rebuttal comment was contextual response to defense argument about benefit of doubt; did not shift burden | Rebuttal improperly implied defendant had to prove innocence or commented on silence | No improper burden shift given defense argument and court instructions |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Trial counsel’s performance was reasonable; failure to object to non-errors not deficient; proposed witnesses/experts lacked adequate proffer | Counsel failed to object, investigate or call witnesses/experts (PTSD expert, "Linda," Dr. Singer) which deprived defense of substantial defenses | No ineffective assistance: counsel’s choices reasonable; proffer insufficient; no reasonable probability of different outcome |
| Great-weight/credibility challenge | Victim’s testimony—though some inconsistencies—was not inherently implausible; corroboration existed | Inconsistent statements and impeachment show verdict against great weight and risk of convicting innocent person | No new trial: credibility determinations are for jury; inconsistencies did not meet Lemmon standards |
| Sufficiency of evidence for CSC-IV (force/coercion) | Victim’s testimony plus corroboration and bruising proved sexual contact by force/coercion (surprise, physical restraint) | Evidence insufficient because of inconsistencies and lack of corroboration for penetration/assault | Sufficient: victim’s testimony alone and corroborating evidence support conviction for CSC-IV |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Bennett, 290 Mich. App. 465 (procedural standard for unpreserved prosecutorial-misconduct claims)
- People v. Gaines, 306 Mich. App. 289 (plain-error review and reviewing evidence in prosecution’s favor)
- People v. Kowalski, 489 Mich. 488 (prosecutorial-misconduct standard and plain-error framework)
- People v. Brown, 279 Mich. App. 116 (de novo review of prosecutorial-misconduct constitutional claims)
- People v. Lemmon, 456 Mich. 625 (standards for new trial based on great-weight/credibility issues)
- People v. Carlson, 466 Mich. 130 (definition and scope of force in CSC statutes)
- People v. Szalma, 487 Mich. 708 (victim testimony alone may suffice for sexual assault conviction)
- People v. Meissner, 294 Mich. App. 438 (permissible prosecutor argument based on evidence)
- People v. Fyda, 288 Mich. App. 446 (limitations on commenting about defendant’s silence)
- People v. Abraham, 256 Mich. App. 265 (curative effect of jury instructions)