People of Michigan v. Louis Michelle McCaskill
327600
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 18, 2016Background
- In 2003 CR moved in with YW and her husband, defendant, when CR was nine.
- In 2008, CR, then 14, told YW she had been impregnated by defendant.
- A police officer collected buccal swabs; fetal material and CR’s and defendant’s DNA were analyzed.
- 2010 testing showed half fetal DNA from CR and half from defendant; 2014 testing reinforced a strong paternal link.
- Before trial, prosecutor sought to admit YW’s testimony about defendant’s relationship with YW beginning when she was 14.
- Trial court admitted the other-acts evidence; defendant challenged under MRE 404(b) and MCL 768.27a.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of other-acts evidence | McCaskill contends admissible under 404(b) and 768.27a as part of a common scheme. | McCaskill argues improper prejudice and lack of proper purpose under 404(b). | Admissible under both statutes; probative value outweighed prejudice. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for penetration | DNA link plus YW testimony show penetration and victim age under 750.520b. | Possibility of impregnation by someone else defeats penetration beyond reasonable doubt. | Sufficient evidence; reasonable juror could find penetration beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Hearsay of CR’s pregnancy | YW’s testimony about CR’s statement may be admissible as an exception. | CR’s hearsay statement is inadmissible and prejudicial. | Admissibility error preserved? No preservation; not reversible error given strong DNA proof. |
| Prosecutorial misconduct | Prosecutor acted in good faith seeking admissible evidence. | Prosecution improperly elicited hearsay without proper objection. | Issue unpreserved; no reversible misconduct found; overall trial fair. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Watkins, 491 Mich 450 (2012) (MRE 403 and MCL 768.27a balancing; prejudice considerations)
- People v Sabin (After Remand), 463 Mich 43 (2000) (common design or plan; similarity requirements for 404(b))
- People v Johnigan, 265 Mich App 463 (2005) (test for admission of other-acts evidence under 404(b))
- People v Mills, 450 Mich 61 (1995) (prejudice balancing in evidentiary rulings)
- People v Brown, 294 Mich App 377 (2011) (remoteness affects weight, not admissibility)
- People v Maciejewski, 68 Mich App 1 (1976) (hearsay and exceptions context in prior rules)
- McDaniel v. Brown, 558 U.S. 120 (2010) (habeas and evidentiary uses of DNA evidence discussion)
- People v Nowack, 462 Mich 392 (2000) (sufficiency and inference standards for conviction)
- Hackney v. People, 183 Mich App 516 (1990) (then-existing physical condition vs memory or belief in hearsay rule)