People of Michigan v. Jamie Salvador Plasencia
330498
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- Defendant Jamie Plasencia, father of victim EP, convicted by jury of 12 counts: six first-degree CSC (three under MCL 750.520b(1)(a) for victims under 13; three under MCL 750.520b(1)(b)(ii) for victims 13–15 where actor is related) and six second-degree CSC (parallel provisions for sexual contact).
- EP testified the abuse began at age nine and continued until about age fourteen across three residences; acts included touching, oral contact, intercourse, and use of a sock after ejaculation.
- EP’s mother corroborated several facts (relationship, cleaning with a sock, EP’s report of three residences) though there were some inconsistencies in EP’s testimony about specific locations and sleeping arrangements.
- No DNA or other physical evidence tying defendant to blankets/pillows was introduced; a medical exam showed an intact hymen, and the doctor explained lack of physical signs is common.
- Defendant was sentenced to lengthy prison terms (25–50 years on three CSC I counts, 23–50 years on the remaining CSC I counts, and 3–5 years on each CSC II count) and appealed claiming insufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove sexual penetration/contact | EP’s testimony and mother’s corroboration prove sexual penetration and contact across the charged period | EP’s testimony was inconsistent and lacked physical corroboration, so elements were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt | Affirmed: viewing evidence in prosecution’s favor, a rational jury could find elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Credibility of victim testimony | Victim’s testimony is sufficient; minor inconsistencies go to weight not admissibility | Impeaching inconsistencies (locations, sleeping arrangements, factual impossibility) fatally undermine credibility | Court defers to jury’s credibility determinations; inconsistencies insufficient to overturn verdict |
| Need for physical evidence | Victim testimony and circumstantial inferences can suffice; physical evidence not required | Lack of DNA and intact hymen undercut prosecution’s case | Physical evidence not required; medical testimony explained absence of findings and victim testimony alone can support conviction |
| Applicability of older precedent (People v Smith) | Statutory provision and present evidence distinguish this case from Smith | Smith requires overturning jury verdict for fundamental error | Smith was distinguishable and inapplicable; MCL 750.520h allows conviction on victim testimony alone |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Lueth, 253 Mich. App. 670 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- People v Reese, 491 Mich. 127 (appellate review views evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences can support conviction)
- People v Benton, 294 Mich. App. 191 (penetration with person under 13 constitutes first-degree CSC)
- People v Lockett, 295 Mich. App. 165 (statutory definition of sexual penetration includes intrusion of labia majora)
- People v Brantley, 296 Mich. App. 546 (complainant’s testimony alone can support CSC conviction)