People of Michigan v. Jeffrey Alexander Hogan
332966
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 17, 2017Background
- Defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct for assaults in an alley in Detroit on June 11, 2001; DNA from the victim matched defendant’s DNA and the victim identified him in a photo lineup and at trial.
- Prosecution introduced other-acts evidence of two prior assaults (1996, 1997) where defendant allegedly attacked women from behind in the same area; DNA linked defendant to one prior victim (VB); a second prior victim (EM) had DNA matching but did not testify.
- The prosecutor announced EM would testify, but she failed to appear at trial; defense requested the M Crim JI 5.12 missing-witness instruction and the court gave it.
- Defendant was charged with first-degree CSC based on sexual penetration occurring during a kidnapping (forcible confinement/asportation).
- Jury convicted on both counts; trial court sentenced defendant as a fourth-offense habitual offender to concurrent terms of 75–120 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (asportation for kidnapping element) | Evidence (victim testimony, movement to alley, threats, DNA, ID) supports asportation not incidental to assault | Movement was merely incidental to sexual assault, so kidnapping element not met | Affirmed: reasonable jury could find asportation (movement to isolated alley increased danger) |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | N/A (prosecution) | Counsel elicited movement testimony on cross, which aided prosecution on asportation element | No relief: counsel’s cross-examination was a reasonable trial strategy; no prejudice shown |
| Admission of other-acts evidence (MRE 404(b)) | Other acts were probative of common scheme/plan, identity, absence of mistake | Admission was improper propensity evidence and unduly prejudicial | Affirmed: admitted for proper non-propensity purposes and not unfairly prejudicial; court gave limiting instructions |
| Confrontation / EM’s missing testimony | N/A (prosecution) | Testimony about DNA from EM’s assault should be struck or violated confrontation when EM didn’t testify | Waived: defendant requested and relied on missing-witness instruction at trial, thereby extinguishing appellate challenge |
| Sentencing / Lockridge challenge (judicial fact-finding on OVs) | Guidelines advisory post-Lockridge; court may still score OVs using judicial fact-finding | Trial court engaged in unconstitutional judicial fact-finding that constrained minimum sentence | No resentencing: sentencing occurred after Lockridge; guidelines were advisory and no Sixth Amendment constraint shown |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Bailey, 310 Mich. App. 703 (discussing standard of review for sufficiency)
- People v Reese, 491 Mich. 127 (review standard; view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution)
- People v Wesley, 421 Mich. 375 (elements of forcible-confinement kidnapping and asportation analysis)
- People v Adams, 389 Mich. 222 (movement that increases danger supports asportation)
- People v Knox, 469 Mich. 502 (permissible purposes for MRE 404(b) evidence)
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (sentencing guidelines advisory; effect on OV fact-finding)