914 N.W.2d 384
Mich. Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant (52) invited a 16-year-old neighbor into his apartment, showed him an explicit video, and offered money ($25 then $100) for sexual acts; the victim fled and reported the incident.
- Police arrested defendant and, during an inventory search, found less than 25 grams of cocaine on him.
- Defendant was tried by jury and convicted of child sexually abusive activity (MCL 750.145c(2)), possession of <25 grams of cocaine, and disseminating sexually explicit material; sentenced as a third-offense habitual offender to concurrent terms with a minimum of 15 years for the child-sex offense.
- On appeal defendant challenged: (1) sufficiency of evidence for the child-sex conviction, arguing the statute only covers production of material; (2) judicial bias based on the judge’s courtroom interventions and limitation of cross-examination; and (3) sentence as an unreasonable departure.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed statutory interpretation de novo, insufficiency of the evidence de novo, and judicial-bias claims de novo; it affirmed all convictions and the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether evidence was sufficient for conviction under MCL 750.145c(2) | Prosecution: Evidence showed defendant arranged or attempted to arrange child sexually abusive activity by inviting the minor, showing porn, and offering money for sexual acts. | Willis: Insufficient evidence; statute only criminalizes production of child-sex material. | Held: Sufficient evidence. Court: statute covers arranging/preparing/attempting child-sex activity, not only production. |
| 2. Whether MCL 750.145c(2) is limited to production of child sexually abusive material | Prosecution: Statute’s text criminalizes arranging/attempting to arrange child sexually abusive activity independent of production intent. | Willis: Statute applies solely to conduct aimed at producing child-sex material. | Held: Statute is not so limited; language unambiguously covers arranging/attempting to arrange child sexually abusive activity. |
| 3. Whether trial judge’s conduct created judicial bias requiring new trial | Prosecution: Court’s interruptions and rule citation were proper case-management and within MRE 611; curative jury instruction removed any prejudice. | Willis: Court’s tone and limiting of cross-examination belittled defense and pierced judicial impartiality. | Held: No bias. Court’s control of questioning was proper, not likely to influence jury; jury instruction cured any possible error. |
| 4. Whether sentence was an unreasonable departure | Prosecution: Sentencing within guidelines after habitual-offender enhancement; no scoring errors. | Willis: Claimed departure/unreasonable sentence. | Held: No departure. Sentence fell within the enhanced guideline range; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Bailey, 310 Mich. App. 703 (discussing standard for sufficiency review)
- People v Reese, 491 Mich. 127 (explaining view-evidence-in-prosecution’s-favor rule)
- People v Nowack, 462 Mich. 392 (deference to juries on credibility and reasonable inferences)
- People v Hill, 486 Mich. 658 (statutory interpretation de novo)
- People v Perry, 317 Mich. App. 589 (legislative intent and plain-language review)
- People v Holder, 483 Mich. 168 (when to consult extrinsic sources for statutory meaning)
- People v Adkins, 272 Mich. App. 37 (explaining three categories of liability under MCL 750.145c(2))
- People v Aspy, 292 Mich. App. 36 (sufficient evidence for attempted/preparatory conduct under MCL 750.145c(2))
- People v Stevens, 498 Mich. 162 (standard for when judicial conduct pierces veil of impartiality)
- People v Jackson, 292 Mich. App. 583 (presumption of judicial impartiality; rulings alone do not show bias)
- People v Conley, 270 Mich. App. 301 (trial court’s duty to control proceedings)
- People v Sexton, 250 Mich. App. 211 (limits on cross-examination are permissible)
- People v Schrauben, 314 Mich. App. 181 (affirming sentence when within guidelines)