People of Michigan v. Kejuan Marcell Douglas
326666
Mich. Ct. App.Nov 1, 2016Background
- Defendants Kejuan and Charles Douglas (brothers) were tried jointly for the August 16, 2013 sexual assault of a 16‑year‑old woman after she accepted a ride from Charles via Tagged.com.
- Prosecution's theory: Charles picked up Kejuan and another man; the victim was moved to the van and sexually assaulted by Kejuan, Charles, and the unidentified man; victim escaped, took Charles’s phone, and 911 was called.
- DNA from the victim’s abrasions and a towel at the scene matched Charles; Charles’s DNA also matched another 2013 sexual‑assault matter involving a similar fact pattern.
- Jury convicted Kejuan of two counts of first‑degree criminal sexual conduct; sentenced to consecutive 20–60 year terms.
- Jury convicted Charles of first‑degree CSC (and other counts); trial court sentenced him to 40–90 years for first‑degree CSC (served consecutively to concurrent 10–15 year terms for other convictions).
- Appeals: both defendants challenge aspects of trial and sentencing; the Court of Appeals affirmed convictions but remanded Charles’s sentence for further Lockridge/Steanhouse consideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kejuan was entitled to a mistrial / severance after late admission of other‑acts evidence against Charles | Prosecution: joint trial was appropriate; other‑acts evidence against Charles properly admitted and limited by instruction | Kejuan: admission of other‑acts evidence against Charles after trial began prejudiced him and required separate trial or mistrial | Court held no abuse of discretion: strong policy favors joint trials; Kejuan failed to show substantial prejudice or make offer of proof; jury instructions limited use to Charles and jurors presumed to follow them |
| Whether admission of newly discovered other‑acts evidence against Charles unfairly prejudiced his trial | Prosecution: evidence admissible and cautionary instructions protected Charles; lateness justified under circumstances | Charles: late disclosure prevented targeted voir dire, denied strategic preparation, and deprived opportunity to address in opening statement causing unfair prejudice | Court held no abuse of discretion: voir dire and jury instructions were adequate; defendant showed no concrete prejudice from delay; defense strategy (consent) was not negated |
| Whether Charles’s upward departure sentence was unreasonable and requires resentencing | Prosecution: sentencing court must be allowed to reconsider sentence under Lockridge/Steanhouse remand procedure | Charles: departure from guidelines and long sentence unreasonable | Court affirmed convictions but remanded for Crosby/Lockridge remand so trial court can reconsider sentence under Milbourn proportionality / Lockridge reasonableness framework (remand required) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (Michigan Supreme Court) (Michigan sentencing guidelines unconstitutional to the extent judicial fact‑finding increases minimum; departure review for reasonableness)
- People v Steanhouse, 313 Mich App 1 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (applies Milbourn proportionality as reasonableness standard and directs Crosby‑style remand when Lockridge postdates sentencing)
- People v Hana, 447 Mich 325 (Michigan Supreme Court) (requirements for severance and showing of prejudice)
- People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 (Michigan Supreme Court) (principle of proportionality for sentence review)
- People v Breidenbach, 489 Mich 1 (Michigan Supreme Court) (jurors presumed to follow limiting instructions)
- People v Schaw, 288 Mich App 231 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (standard of review for mistrial/severance rulings)