People of Michigan v. Eugene Roy Shaw
332405
| Mich. Ct. App. | Sep 14, 2017Background
- Defendant Eugene Roy Shaw was convicted by a jury of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I) and felonious assault for forcibly sexually assaulting the complainant in his home; he was sentenced as a second habitual offender to lengthy prison terms.
- At trial defendant denied carrying a gun and said he formerly owned a shotgun but sold it; prosecution elicited evidence that a 2009 sexual-assault investigation resulted in police seizing a 12-gauge Remington shotgun from defendant’s home.
- The 2009 allegation involved substantially similar facts: defendant picked up a woman at a gas station, took her to his home, forced intercourse while choking her, and used a shotgun to pry her legs open—similar to how a sword was allegedly used in the charged offense.
- The prosecution gave MRE 404(b) notice of intent to offer the 2009 act to show common plan/scheme and to rebut defendant’s testimony that he did not possess firearms or commit the charged acts.
- Defendant objected to admission on MRE 608(b) (impeachment via extrinsic acts), MRE 404(b) (other-acts propensity evidence), and the Confrontation Clause (the 2009 complainant did not testify). He also challenged sentencing under Lockridge for OV 4 and OV 7 scoring.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior gun ownership and 2009 sexual-assault evidence (MRE 608(b) / 404(b)) | Evidence was admissible to rebut defendant’s denials, show common scheme/plan, and was relevant and properly noticed under MRE 404(b). | Admission was improper collateral impeachment under MRE 608(b) and impermissible propensity other-acts evidence under MRE 404(b)(1). | Admission was proper: evidence was offered for non-propensity purposes (common plan, rebuttal of denials), was relevant, and trial court did not abuse discretion. |
| Confrontation Clause re: 2009 complainant not testifying | No testimonial statements or police reports were admitted; defendant himself testified about the 2009 investigation. | Admission of the other-acts allegations denied defendant opportunity to cross-examine the 2009 victim, violating the Sixth Amendment. | Not preserved; reviewed for plain error and rejected. No testimonial out-of-court statements were admitted and defendant testified about the 2009 incident, so no plain Confrontation error. |
| Sentencing: judicial fact-finding for OV 4 and OV 7 (Lockridge) | Sentencing followed Lockridge (guidelines advisory); trial court properly exercised discretion and was not bound by guidelines floor despite using judicially-found facts. | Judicial fact-finding to score OVs impermissibly increased the sentencing floor in violation of the Sixth Amendment (Lockridge error). | No reversible Lockridge error: sentencing occurred after Lockridge made guidelines advisory; use of judicially-found facts to score OVs did not unconstitutionally constrain the court’s discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (Michigan Supreme Court decision holding guidelines advisory when judicial fact-finding was combined with mandatory guideline floors)
- Sabin v. State (After Remand), 463 Mich 43 (admission of similar misconduct may be allowed to show common plan, scheme, or system)
- Crawford, 458 Mich 376 (defining probative value and relevance principles for evidence)
- Carines, 460 Mich 750 (plain-error standard and requirements for unpreserved claims)
- McDaniel, 469 Mich 409 (standard of appellate review for preserved evidentiary rulings)