People of Michigan v. Lovell Charles Sharpe
333872
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 16, 2017Background
- Defendant charged with first-, third-, and fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct for alleged sexual penetration of a 13–14-year-old complainant (DM).
- DM tested positive for pregnancy in Oct 2014, then had an abortion in Nov 2014; defendant later paid half the abortion cost.
- DM delayed disclosure of the abuse until April 2015; she and her mother testified she had no other sexual partners during the relevant period.
- Prosecutor moved to pierce the rape-shield rule to admit evidence of DM’s pregnancy, abortion, and that defendant was the only sexual partner, arguing relevance to source of pregnancy and corroboration.
- Trial court allowed testimony that DM became pregnant while sexually active with defendant but excluded evidence of the abortion and testimony that she had no other sexual partners.
- Court of Appeals consolidated cross-appeals: prosecutor challenged exclusion of abortion and lack-of-partners evidence; defendant challenged admission of pregnancy evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Sharpe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of complainant's pregnancy | Pregnancy is relevant to show vaginal penetration, corroborate DM, and show source/origin of pregnancy under MRE 404(a)(3) and MCL 750.520j | Pregnancy testimony is barred as impermissible evidence of the victim's past sexual conduct and is unduly prejudicial absent DNA linking defendant to fetus | Admitted — pregnancy is relevant corroboration and fits statutory exception as evidence of past sexual conduct with the actor; not barred by MRE 404(a)(3) or MCL 750.520j |
| Admissibility of evidence that defendant was DM's only sexual partner (lack of other partners) | Highly probative to identify defendant as the sole origin of the pregnancy; not offered to show character/consent and fits rape-shield exceptions | Such evidence is character/virginity evidence barred by MRE 404(a)(3) and Bone; prejudicial | Admitted — testimony that no one else sexually penetrated DM is relevant to origin of pregnancy and not excluded by rape-shield or 404(a)(3) given the purpose offered |
| Admissibility of evidence of DM's abortion | Abortion corroborates pregnancy and penetration, and coupled with defendant's payment supports inferences (consciousness of guilt); relevant and not unduly inflammatory | Abortion implicates prior sexual conduct and is prejudicial; should be excluded under rape-shield rule | Admitted — circumstances of the abortion are highly probative to penetration/pregnancy, fall within statutory exception, and are not unduly inflammatory |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Bone, 230 Mich. App. 699 (interpreting MRE 404(a)(3) and discussing limits on virginity evidence) (trial court error where virginity used to prove non-consent)
- People v Mardlin, 487 Mich. 609 (standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- People v Duenaz, 306 Mich. App. 85 (discussing legislative purpose of rape-shield statute and its application to child victims)
- People v Adair, 452 Mich. 473 (statutory touchstone of relevance and exceptions in MCL 750.520j)
- People v Arenda, 416 Mich. 1 (rape-shield law excludes evidence of victim’s sexual conduct with persons other than defendant)
- People v Sabin (After Remand), 463 Mich. 43 (deference where evidentiary decisions present close questions)
- People v Mills, 450 Mich. 61 (probative value and prejudice balancing)
- State v Stanton, 319 N.C. 180 (admitting pregnancy and abortion testimony to corroborate penetration and pregnancy)