People of Michigan v. David Kent Chaplin
331190
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 16, 2017Background
- Defendant David Chaplin was convicted by a jury of third-degree (MCL 750.520d(1)(d)) and fourth-degree (MCL 750.520e(1)(d)) criminal sexual conduct for sexually abusing his stepdaughter S.A. from about age 12 through high school; sentenced to 55 months–15 years (CSC III) and 12 months–2 years (CSC IV).
- S.A. testified to progressive contact: initially touching while sitting on a couch, escalating to breasts and buttocks, and later digital penetration and cunnilingus; assaults typically occurred when the mother was at work or asleep.
- Defendant sought to admit evidence (and expert testimony from Dr. Okla) about twin stepsisters who had made prior sexual‑abuse allegations against many men, arguing S.A. had been exposed and rendered suggestible; trial court excluded that evidence and the expert.
- Prosecution obtained a pretrial ruling admitting other‑acts evidence relating to allegations by defendant’s biological daughter in 1993, but that evidence was not presented at trial.
- Defendant raised additional claims on appeal: ineffective assistance of trial counsel (failure to call/sequester character witnesses, waiver of right to testify), OV 10 predatory‑conduct scoring (15 points), and allegations of false testimony/collusion by witnesses and the prosecutor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of twins' prior allegations / expert testimony | Exclusion proper because evidence not relevant and expert would not assist jury; credibility is for jury | Evidence relevant to S.A.’s suggestibility and credibility; expert could explain effect of exposure | Exclusion affirmed: twins’ allegations did not make S.A.’s accusations more probable and expert testimony improperly attacked credibility (MRE 401, 702) |
| Pretrial ruling on other‑acts (1993 allegation) | Ruling to admit was permissible because other‑acts could show propensity and affect credibility under MCL 768.27a | Admission was unreliable due to remoteness and recantation | No relief: trial court’s admissibility ruling was legally supportable and evidence was not presented at trial, so no prejudice |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel failed to call/sequester character witnesses and coerced waiver of defendant’s right to testify | Counsel acted within strategic bounds; defendant voluntarily waived testimony after being advised | Claim denied: decisions were reasonable strategy; waiver of testimony was knowing and voluntary; no prejudice shown |
| OV 10 scoring (predatory conduct) | 15 points appropriate because defendant engaged in grooming, isolation, gradual escalation, and used parental authority | Argues conduct not predatory enough to justify 15 points | Affirmed: record shows preoffense grooming/isolation establishing predatory conduct; OV10 properly scored 15 points |
| Alleged false testimony / prosecutorial collusion | Prosecutor knowingly allowed false testimony and witnesses colluded, depriving due process | Inconsistencies were for impeachment; no evidence prosecution knowingly used false testimony | Denied: no record evidence of knowingly false testimony; any inconsistencies were jury impeachment material; no plain error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Feezel, 486 Mich. 184 (trial court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- People v Steele, 283 Mich. App. 472 (expert testimony admissibility standard)
- People v Musser, 494 Mich. 337 (experts may not opine on witness credibility)
- People v Solloway, 316 Mich. App. 174 (MCL 768.27a permits other‑acts evidence to show propensity)
- People v Watkins, 491 Mich. 450 (interpretation of MCL 768.27a and relevance of propensity evidence)
- People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich. 38 (presumption that counsel’s choices are sound trial strategy)
- People v Hoag, 460 Mich. 1 (factual predicate required for ineffective‑assistance claims)
- People v Hardy, 494 Mich. 430 (standard of review and burden for OV scoring facts)
- People v Cannon, 481 Mich. 152 (definition and meaning of predatory conduct under OV 10)
- People v Smith, 498 Mich. 466 (prosecutor’s duty to correct known false testimony)