People of Michigan v. Fred Derrick Rutledge
330246
| Mich. Ct. App. | Feb 28, 2017Background
- Defendant Fred Rutledge was convicted by a jury of assault by strangulation for choking his ex-wife Jeanelle on June 2, 2014; sentence: 11–25 years as a fourth-offense habitual offender. The jury deadlocked on an asserted count of assault with intent to commit murder.
- Jeanelle and two sons testified that defendant choked her twice that evening, threatened to kill her, and fled after the second incident; deputies observed visible injuries (bloody nose, bruising, neck pain) and EMTs treated her.
- Text messages from defendant’s phone corroborated admissions and threats (including statements that he had put his hands around her neck and attempted to strangle her).
- At trial the prosecutor elicited brief testimony that defendant had previously threatened/handled the family’s dogs (cord around a paw/neck) and deputy Hopkins testified about photographing the victim’s eyes/neck and that redness can indicate strangulation.
- Defense argued the dog testimony was improper other-acts evidence and that eliciting Hopkins’ testimony was prosecutorial misconduct/impermissible lay opinion; defendant also contested factual elements at trial (claimed intoxication, denied strangulation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of other-acts (abuse/threats to dogs) | Evidence shows defendant’s rage and behavior that night and bears on his actions toward victim | Testimony was propensity evidence and therefore inadmissible under MRE 404(b) | Court: Admission was error (improper purpose shown), but error was harmless given overwhelming evidence of guilt; no relief granted |
| Prosecutorial misconduct for eliciting deputy Hopkins’ testimony about signs of strangulation | Hopkins’ explanation of why he photographed eyes/neck was proper lay explanation and helpful to jury; prosecutor acted in good faith | Testimony was improper lay opinion or impermissible bolstering of victim; prejudicial | Court: Not misconduct. Hopkins’ brief, nontechnical testimony was reasonably admissible under MRE 701; even if erroneous, not outcome-determinative given the record |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Starr, 457 Mich. 490 (1998) (standard of review for admissibility decisions)
- People v. Bynum, 496 Mich. 610 (2014) (abuse-of-discretion review and scope of admissibility)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (1999) (plain-error standard for unpreserved claims)
- People v. VanderVliet, 444 Mich. 52 (1993) (three-prong test for MRE 404(b) evidence)
- People v. Golochowicz, 413 Mich. 298 (1982) (policy against propensity evidence)
- People v. Dobek, 274 Mich. App. 58 (2007) (prosecutorial-misconduct analysis; good-faith admission defense)
- People v. Watson, 245 Mich. App. 572 (2001) (prejudice and patterns of eliciting inadmissible testimony)
- People v. Knapp, 244 Mich. App. 361 (2001) (reversal standard for preserved evidentiary error: outcome determinative)
- People v. Elston, 462 Mich. 751 (2000) (definition of outcome-determinative error undermining verdict)