People of Michigan v. Craig Joseph Bradley
328806
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 22, 2016Background
- Defendant Craig Bradley was convicted after a jury trial of one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct for sexual assaults on his 15-year-old sister-in-law that occurred the night of June 28–29, 2014.
- Victim testified to digital penetration, breast touching, kissing, and oral-genital contact; a sexual assault nurse examiner found recent genital trauma and collected DNA evidence linking defendant to a swab from the victim’s nipple.
- Defendant denied penetration and oral sex, acknowledged incidental contact, and offered an alternative explanation involving the victim and prior contact with her boyfriend; he testified at trial.
- At trial the court sustained a prosecutor objection during defense opening when defense counsel began to state a theory implicating the boyfriend; defense counsel subsequently completed an opening statement describing defendant’s expected testimony.
- During defendant’s testimony the court sustained an objection when defendant characterized Officer Phillips’s testimony as having been “changed” or transcribed differently.
- Defendant was sentenced as a second-offense habitual offender. Because the court factually scored offense variables (OVs) that affected the guidelines minimum, the Court of Appeals remanded for a Crosby hearing under Lockridge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by sustaining prosecutor’s objection when defense counsel began to state a theory in opening | State argued opening must be limited to facts counsel intends to prove, not argument/theory | Defense argued right to present opening statement includes presenting defense theory to jury | Court: Sustaining objection was error, but harmless; defense still presented opening and argued theory at closing, so no deprivation of right to present a defense |
| Whether sustaining objection to defendant’s characterization of officer testimony denied defendant right to testify | Prosecution argued defendant mischaracterized officer testimony and objection was proper | Defendant argued ruling chilled/denied his right to testify | Court: No abuse of discretion; defendant mischaracterized testimony and rule 611(a) permitted control; defendant still testified so right not denied |
| Whether judicial factfinding at sentencing violated the Sixth Amendment | State conceded judicial factfinding occurred but did not challenge need for remand | Defendant argued OVs scored by judge increased guideline minimum and violated Sixth Amendment | Court: Agreed Lockridge violation occurred; remand for Crosby hearing to determine resentencing needs |
| Whether any procedural waiver defeated opening-statement claim | State argued counsel’s continued statement after objection amounted to waiver | Defendant argued no intentional relinquishment of right | Court: No waiver; brief acknowledgments during ongoing opening did not waive the issue |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (2015) (holding judicial factfinding that increases guidelines minimum implicates Sixth Amendment and requires remedy)
- United States v Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005) (procedure for remand when guidelines application violated Sixth Amendment)
- People v Chivas, 322 Mich 384 (1948) (defense has right to make opening statement outlining theory)
- People v Carines, 460 Mich 750 (1999) (plain-error review standard)
- Rock v Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987) (defendant’s right to testify is not absolute but must yield to reasonable evidentiary rules)
- United States v Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87 (1993) (right to testify is constitutionally protected)
- People v Stokes, 312 Mich App 181 (2015) (procedures and considerations for Crosby remands)