People of Michigan v. Joseph James Pagan, 325558

Background

Defendant Joseph Pagan was convicted by a jury of first-degree premeditated murder and first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I) and sentenced to life without parole (murder) and 225 months–40 years (CSC-I).
Victim was beaten, strangled, had garbage bags and duct tape placed over her head, and was then shot multiple times with an air (pellet) rifle while naked and lying on the floor; a pellet penetrated the victim’s left labia majora.
The felony information and jury instructions described penetration as having been accomplished with the rifle; evidence showed the pellet (fired from the rifle) caused the genital intrusion, but the rifle itself did not directly touch the victim’s genitalia.
Defendant sought a voluntary manslaughter instruction based on alleged provocation and advanced defenses including insanity/diminished capacity; police interview showed delusional and inconsistent statements by defendant.
Trial court admitted graphic autopsy photographs over defendant’s objection; one juror briefly lost consciousness during their presentation.
On appeal, defendant challenged sufficiency of penetration evidence/notice, denial of manslaughter instruction, need for resentencing post-Lockridge, admissibility of autopsy photos, and trial counsel effectiveness for not objecting to photos and not pursuing insanity defense. Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of penetration / adequacy of information for CSC-I	Prosecution: pellet fired from rifle intruded into genital opening; information and instruction reasonably described use of rifle	Pagan: rifle never directly contacted genitalia; information/instruction incorrectly stated rifle accomplished penetration and failed to give adequate notice	Affirmed: pellet intrusion into labia majora qualifies as penetration; pellet was instrumentality of rifle; information not fatally vague and any defect not plain error
Voluntary manslaughter instruction	Prosecution: no reasonable provocation; defendant left scene and threat had ended	Pagan: alleged provocation during sexual encounter justified instruction	Affirmed: objective reasonable-provocation standard not met; defendant not under imminent threat; trial court properly refused instruction; any error harmless
Sentencing post-Lockridge	Prosecution: murder mandatory life renders companion-guideline issues insignificant	Pagan: seeks resentencing under Lockridge	Affirmed: mandatory life sentence for murder nullified significance of guideline claim for CSC-I; no effect on outcome so no resentencing needed
Admission of autopsy photographs; ineffective assistance for not objecting / not asserting insanity	Photos were probative of nature/extent of injuries and premeditation; counsel’s tactical choices were reasonable; expert found defendant not legally insane	Pagan: photos unduly prejudicial; counsel ineffective for acquiescing and failing to present insanity defense	Affirmed: probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; counsel not ineffective—insanity defense lacked support and likely would have been rebutted

Key Cases Cited

People v Nickens, 470 Mich 622 (prosecution must prove personal injury, sexual penetration, and force for CSC-I)
People v Bristol, 115 Mich App 236 (labia falls within genital opening distinct from vagina)
People v Whitfield, 425 Mich 116 (statutory distinction between genital opening and vagina)
People v Legg, 197 Mich App 131 (statutory construction of sexual penetration term)
People v Lockett, 295 Mich App 165 (labia as genital opening for penetration)
People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210 (standard for sufficiency review; rational trier of fact)
People v Mendoza, 468 Mich 527 (voluntary manslaughter; reasonable provocation as circumstance negating malice)
People v Gonzalez, 468 Mich 636 (use of injuries and evidence to support premeditation and deliberation)
People v Blackston, 481 Mich 451 (MRE 403 balancing test for unfair prejudice)
People v Mills, 450 Mich 61 (gruesomeness alone does not require exclusion of photographs)
People v Carpenter, 464 Mich 223 (legal insanity defense elements and burden)
People v Ericksen, 288 Mich App 192 (failing to advance meritless argument is not ineffective assistance)