People of Michigan v. Fabian Dwight Rucker
329962
| Mich. Ct. App. | Feb 23, 2017Background
- Defendant Fabian Rucker was convicted by a jury of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (MCL 750.520b(1)(a)) for penetrating a nine-year-old victim; sentenced to 25–50 years.
- The victim reported the assault at age 12 and testified at trial that defendant tried to insert a finger into her vagina and it hurt; she identified defendant as the assailant.
- Prosecution introduced evidence of defendant’s prior sexual-offense conduct: a former foster child testified about an earlier assault for which defendant had a prior conviction.
- At a Children’s Assessment Center the victim gave medical-history statements to a medical social worker and was examined by a nurse; those statements were admitted at trial.
- A detective testified about her investigation (number of cases handled, use of a forensic interview protocol, confirming that the victim ran to her mother after the assault, and locating the foster-child report). Defense raised multiple appellate claims, including insufficiency of evidence, hearsay/Confrontation Clause challenges, prosecutorial error, and ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence of penetration | Victim's testimony that defendant tried to put a finger inside and felt pain supports a finding of penetration | No proof of penetration | Court: Evidence sufficient; slight intrusion (finger) can satisfy statutory "penetration" when viewed in prosecution's favor (Lane/Lockett standard) |
| Admissibility of victim’s medical-history statements (hearsay) | Statements to medical social worker were for medical diagnosis/treatment and thus admissible under MRE 803(4) | Statements were inadmissible hearsay | Court: No plain error—statements trustworthy under Duenaz/Meeboer factors and admissible under MRE 803(4) |
| Confrontation Clause challenge to medical-history statements | Statements were nontestimonial (primary purpose medical treatment), and victim testified at trial so defendant had cross-examination | Statements were testimonial and admission violated Crawford | Court: No violation—victim testified and statements were nontestimonial under Davis because primary purpose was medical care, not prosecution |
| Alleged prosecutorial/witness error (detective testimony) | Detective’s testimony improperly bolstered victim and foster-child credibility (disallowed opinion on truthfulness) | Detective did not opine on credibility; she described investigative process and documentary findings | Court: No plain error—testimony did not impermissibly vouch for credibility and any hearsay reference was not outcome-determinative (Carines) |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to object | Counsel should have objected to nurse and detective testimony | Objections would have been futile; evidence and testimony independent and outcome would not have changed | Court: No ineffective assistance—performance not prejudicial; no reasonable probability of different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Lane, 308 Mich. App. 38 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- People v Lockett, 295 Mich. App. 165 (penetration can be inferred from testimony of touching and pain)
- People v Whitfield, 425 Mich. 116 (definition of penetration includes any intrusion however slight)
- People v Duenaz, 306 Mich. App. 85 (trustworthiness factors for admitting child’s statements under MRE 803(4))
- People v Meeboer, 439 Mich. 310 (factors and guidance on medical-purpose exception and identity relevance)
- Davis v Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (test for nontestimonial statements and ongoing emergency)
- Crawford v Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (Confrontation Clause bars testimonial out-of-court statements without prior cross-examination)
- People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain-error review and prejudice standard)
- People v Douglas, 496 Mich. 557 (expert/witness opinions improperly bolstering child-victim credibility)