People of Michigan v. Jesse James Sweeney
330662
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 13, 2017Background
- Defendant Jesse Sweeney was tried by jury and convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (MCL 750.520b(1)(f)) and domestic violence, second offense (MCL 750.81(4)); sentenced as a second-offense habitual offender to concurrent terms (180–480 months and 366 days).
- Charged after an altercation in the couple’s home where the complainant alleged repeated punching and nonconsensual sex; defendant disputed the number of blows and contended the sex was consensual.
- Defense counsel in opening suggested the prosecutor overcharged because the complainant was friends with the prosecutor’s daughter; the court sua sponte declared a mistrial and precluded that evidence at retrial.
- Defendant moved for a mistrial during trial based on various prosecutor statements (calling defense counsel unprofessional; speaking objections referencing medical/timing matters and a police report); the court denied the mistrial requests and issued curative instructions.
- The court admitted other-acts domestic-violence evidence under MCL 768.27b from the complainant and two ex-girlfriends; it also admitted limited expert testimony on victim behavior (Patricia Haist) under MRE 702.
- Defendant raised additional challenges to witness sequestration and to scoring of Offense Variables (OV) 13 and 19 at sentencing; the trial court’s rulings were affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy after sua sponte mistrial | Retrial not barred if mistrial manifestly necessary; defense-caused mistrial permits retrial | Mistrial was unnecessary; defense should have been allowed to present prosecutor-bias evidence; retrial barred by Double Jeopardy | Court: Mistrial was manifestly necessary because defense opening improperly tainted jury; retrial not barred |
| Prosecutorial misconduct / motion for mistrial during trial | Prosecutor’s comments and speaking objections were brief/cumulative and curable by instruction | Prosecutor’s remarks (personal jibes, speaking objections) denied fair trial and required mistrial | Court: Remarks were brief/cumulative; curative instructions sufficed; no mistrial abuse |
| Admission of other-acts (MCL 768.27b / MRE 403) | Other-acts relevant to domestic-violence propensity and permitted; not unfairly prejudicial | Evidence unfairly prejudicial and cumulative; should be excluded under MRE 403 | Court: Evidence admissible under MCL 768.27b; probative value outweighed prejudice with limiting instruction |
| Expert testimony (MRE 702) | Haist’s testimony explained counterintuitive victim behavior; did not vouch for credibility | Testimony impermissibly vouched, was unreliable (Daubert/Kumho) and prejudicial | Court: Testimony helped jurors understand behavior, limited appropriately, reliable on experience basis; admission proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (trial court may declare mistrial when manifest necessity exists; retrial permitted where mistrial not prosecutorially motivated)
- People v. Dawson, 431 Mich. 234 (mistrial standards and when retrial is barred by double jeopardy)
- People v. Mack, 493 Mich. 1 (MCL 768.27 statutory expansion of admissible domestic-violence other-acts evidence)
- People v. Peterson, 450 Mich. 349 (limits on expert testimony about abuse victims; experts may explain behaviors but not vouch for truth)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert framework flexibly applied to experience-based expert testimony)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (factors for evaluating scientific expert reliability)
- People v. Kowalski, 492 Mich. 106 (expert testimony must assist trier of fact and address matters beyond common understanding)
- People v. Lockridge, 498 Mich. 358 (sentencing guidelines must be scored and considered; context for OV challenges)