People of Michigan v. Clarence McMillen Jr, 332089

Background

Defendant lived in his home with his former girlfriend and her four children (they had resided there about one month); the victim was the girlfriend’s 13–15-year-old daughter who regarded defendant as a stepfather.
The victim testified that while she fell asleep in defendant’s bedroom, he sexually assaulted her; defendant was charged with three counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I) under MCL 750.520b(1)(b)(i).
A jury convicted defendant on all three CSC-I counts; the trial court sentenced him as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 30–45 years’ imprisonment on each count.
On appeal defendant challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence that he and the victim were members of the same household, (2) alleged Brady violation and use of perjured testimony based on withheld DHHS and hospital notes, (3) admissibility/authentication of DNA evidence (Coy and chain/timing issues), and (4) ineffective assistance of counsel for not objecting to DNA evidence.
The Court of Appeals reviewed sufficiency de novo and unpreserved claims for plain error; it affirmed the convictions on all grounds.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Household element for CSC‑I	Evidence showed family unit residency and shared household functions; victim and children lived with defendant and he exercised parental authority.	Residency was not permanent; defendant and victim were not members of same household under statute.	The record supported a reasonable jury finding a "household" relationship; conviction upheld.
Brady / use of false testimony	Any DHHS/hospital records were not material and did not undermine testimony; no knowing use of false testimony.	Prosecution withheld DHHS and hospital notes that would impeach victim and girlfriend and knowingly used perjured testimony.	No Brady/plain‑error: records were not materially inconsistent with trial testimony and would not likely change outcome.
DNA evidence admissibility (Coy) and sample timing/authentication	DNA expert provided interpretive analysis and opinion of match; lab report timing did not show improper sourcing.	Expert gave no statistical analysis per Coy; lab report shows Date Received before buccal swab—so sample may not be defendant's.	Expert provided sufficient qualitative/probabilistic interpretation to satisfy Coy; timing/chain did not show misidentification—no plain error.
Ineffective assistance for failing to object to DNA/testimony	Counsel’s failure to object was reasonable because objections would have been futile.	Counsel was deficient for failing to object to DNA testimony and to chain‑of‑custody/timing issues.	Counsel not ineffective: objections would be meritless; defendant failed to show a reasonable probability of different outcome.

Key Cases Cited

People v. Phillips, 251 Mich. App. 100 (2002) ("household" denotes a family unit residing under one roof for more than a brief visit)
People v. Coy, 243 Mich. App. 283 (2000) (some qualitative or quantitative interpretation must accompany DNA match testimony)
People v. Chenault, 495 Mich. 142 (2014) (elements of Brady: suppression, favorability, materiality)
People v. Aceval, 282 Mich. App. 379 (2009) (conviction obtained by knowingly using false testimony violates due process; materiality standard)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecutor must disclose exculpatory/impeachment evidence)
People v. McGhee, 268 Mich. App. 600 (2005) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
People v. Solloway, 316 Mich. App. 174 (2016) (standards for ineffective assistance review)
People v. Lockett, 295 Mich. App. 165 (2012) (presumption of effective assistance; two‑part Strickland analysis)
People v. Ericksen, 288 Mich. App. 192 (2010) (failure to raise futile objection not ineffective assistance)