People of Michigan v. Houston Henry Charlton III
327923
| Mich. Ct. App. | Nov 10, 2016Background
- Defendant (Houston Charlton III) was convicted by a jury of third-offense domestic assault (MCL 750.81) and sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 2.5–25 years.
- Victim (on‑/off girlfriend, mother of defendant’s children) initially told police and CPS defendant slammed her head into a bathroom wall, strangled her, and threatened to kill the family; officer observed neck marks and police found a hole in the bathroom wall.
- At trial the victim largely recanted, testifying the argument became heated but did not turn physical and that she falsely reported to get defendant out of the house.
- Prosecution admitted (1) victim’s out‑of‑court statements to police under MCL 768.27c, (2) prior acts of domestic violence under MCL 768.27b, (3) the child’s prior statements for impeachment, and (4) expert testimony about domestic‑violence victim behavior.
- Jury convicted; defendant appealed claiming insufficient evidence, evidentiary error (MCL 768.27b/c, hearsay, expert), prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence | Evidence (victim’s statements, physical marks, wall hole, prior abuse) supports assault/battery | Recantation created reasonable doubt; conviction depends on witness credibility | Affirmed — viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, rational jury could find assault/battery proved beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Admissibility under MCL 768.27b (other‑acts) | Prior domestic acts were relevant to propensity, credibility, and context | MCL 768.27b violates separation of powers; propensity evidence is unfair/irrelevant | Affirmed — separation‑of‑powers rejected; statute permits propensity evidence and MRE 403 balancing favored admission. |
| Admissibility under MCL 768.27c (victim statements) | Victim’s out‑of‑court police statement was timely, corroborated, trustworthy; CPS statement admissible/cumulative | Statements untimely, CPS not "law enforcement," and untrustworthy | Affirmed — police statement timely and trustworthy; any error admitting CPS remark was harmless/cumulative. |
| Hearsay/impeachment of child witness | Prior inconsistent statements to police were admissible to impeach memory/credibility | Prosecutor used impeachment to introduce substantive, inculpatory hearsay | Affirmed — impeachment permitted under MRE 607/613; child’s whereabouts/credibility were contested. |
| Expert testimony on domestic violence | Expert testimony explained why victims recant/delay; not vouching | Expert improperly vouched for victim’s veracity | Affirmed — expert gave general patterns and did not opine on this victim’s truthfulness. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct | Arguments framed evidence and credibility; did not improperly shift burden or state law presumption | Prosecutor misstated law (calling prior statements “credible”), argued facts not in evidence, denigrated defense | Affirmed — remarks were imprecise but not reversible; jury instructions and record cured any potential prejudice. |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | N/A (pro se claim) | Counsel erred by not objecting to evidentiary and prosecutorial matters | Affirmed — objections would have been futile because challenged rulings were correct; no prejudice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Cameron, 291 Mich. App. 599 (discussing assault/battery definitions and relevance of domestic‑violence evidence)
- People v. Meissner, 294 Mich. App. 438 (timeliness and trustworthiness analysis for domestic‑violence hearsay)
- People v. Railer, 288 Mich. App. 213 (MCL 768.27b permits propensity use of other‑acts evidence in domestic‑violence cases)
- People v. Watkins, 491 Mich. 450 (propensity inference weighed in favor of probative value under MCL 768.27b)
- People v. Musser, 494 Mich. 337 (expert may not vouch for complainant’s veracity)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain‑error standard for unpreserved claims)