People of Michigan v. Mark Joseph Maniaci
330927
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 8, 2017Background
- Defendant Mark Maniaci, president and coach at a shooting club, was tried and convicted for sexual offenses against AA, a 15‑year‑old squad member: three counts of third‑degree CSC (after retrial), one count of fourth‑degree CSC, accosting a child for immoral purposes, and using a computer to commit a crime.
- AA and defendant communicated by text and Kik; conversations included explicit sexual content and requests; AA also sent bikini photos and asked defendant to obtain emergency contraception after sex with her boyfriend.
- AA testified to three physical sexual encounters with defendant (two in trap houses; one in a pole barn that included oral sex and intercourse). She later disclosed the abuse to a teacher and police were notified.
- At the first trial the jury convicted on some charges but deadlocked on the third‑degree CSC counts; those counts were retried and resulted in convictions.
- On appeal defendant challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence for accosting and computer‑use convictions, (2) exclusion of certain texts under Michigan’s rape‑shield statute, (3) sentencing variable scoring under Lockridge, and (4) alleged Doyle/ Fifth Amendment violation from a detective’s comment about unavailable device passcodes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for accosting a child (MCL 750.145a) | Prosecution: Texts and sexualized chats from a 46‑year‑old to a 15‑year‑old constituted encouragement/accosting under either prong of the statute. | Maniaci: No proscribed act followed texts; AA initiated contacts so messages insufficient. | Affirmed — Evidence sufficient; statute covers encouragement/accosting itself and victim’s initiation is immaterial where defendant encouraged sexual acts. |
| Sufficiency for using a computer to commit a crime (MCL 752.796) | Prosecution: Computer use conviction follows from proven accosting via electronic communications. | Maniaci: Computer‑use conviction depends on invalid accosting conviction. | Affirmed — Computer‑use conviction stands because accosting conviction was supported. |
| Exclusion of text messages under rape‑shield statute (MCL 750.520j) | Prosecution: Exclusion appropriate; texts were irrelevant or prejudicial and rape‑shield favors exclusion. | Maniaci: Certain texts (future sexual plans; condom broke/Plan B request) were admissible to impeach or show source of condition/distress. | Affirmed — Trial court properly excluded texts as irrelevant or not fitting rape‑shield exceptions; consent not an issue (victim <16). |
| Sentencing variable scoring post‑Lockridge (OVs 4, 8, 10) | Prosecution: Lockridge made guidelines advisory; judicial fact‑finding to score OVs is permissible when advisory. | Maniaci: Scoring used facts neither admitted nor found by jury, violating Sixth Amendment per Lockridge. | Affirmed — Sentencing occurred after Lockridge rendered guidelines advisory; judicial fact‑finding for advisory scoring did not violate Sixth Amendment. |
| Alleged Doyle violation / mistrial from detective’s comment about passcodes | Prosecution: Comment was minimal, unresponsive, promptly objected to, and cured by instruction; no prejudice. | Maniaci: Detective’s statement was a comment on post‑Miranda silence and warranted mistrial. | Affirmed — No constitutional error; at most a brief, harmless reference, cured by instruction and not used in closing. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Reese, 491 Mich 127 (standard for sufficiency review)
- People v Kowalski, 489 Mich 488 (construction of Michigan's accosting statute; encouragement as independent offense)
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (sentencing guidelines made advisory to cure Sixth Amendment defect)
- People v Shafier, 483 Mich 205 (limits on using post‑arrest silence; Doyle analysis)
- Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756 (single minimal reference to silence may be harmless)
- People v Dennis, 464 Mich 567 (mistrial and unresponsive testimony; harmless reference doctrine)
- People v Mills, 450 Mich 61 (relevancy limits and rape‑shield considerations)
- People v Mikula, 84 Mich App 108 (when prior sexual activity may be admissible to show source of physical condition)
- People v Dendel, 289 Mich App 445 (harmless‑error standard for constitutional errors)