People of Michigan v. Paul a Latorre, 327947

Background

Victim alleged that in October 2013 defendant Paul A. Latorre pinched her nipple hard at work; she also testified defendant had repeatedly touched her breasts, crotch, and buttocks, made crude sexual comments, and once exposed his penis.
The victim did not immediately report the conduct because of a workplace policy that suspended involved employees without pay pending investigation; a coworker reported an incident in March 2014 after a related exposure, leading to both being suspended.
The victim filed a police report on March 27, 2014; defendant was charged with and convicted by a jury of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-IV) under MCL 750.520e(1)(b) and sentenced to five years’ probation.
At trial the prosecutor elicited testimony about defendant’s other uncharged sexual acts toward the victim and elicited the victim’s testimony that defendant once said he wanted to have sex with her 14‑year‑old daughter. Defense counsel objected to some testimony but did not frame objections under MRE 404(b); he later argued some objections and raised prosecutorial denigration of counsel.
On appeal defendant challenged (1) admission of other-acts evidence without MRE 404(b) notice and as propensity evidence, and ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object; (2) admission of the daughter comment as irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial; (3) prosecutorial denigration of defense counsel; and (4) sufficiency of the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of other-acts evidence under MRE 404(b) and lack of 404(b)(2) notice	Other-acts evidence was admissible to show sexual purpose/intent and was probative	Evidence was improper propensity proof and prosecutor failed to give required pretrial notice under MRE 404(b)(2)	Other-acts evidence was substantively admissible to show sexual purpose; lack of formal 404(b) notice was plain error but not outcome-determinative, so no relief
Ineffective assistance for failure to object to other-acts testimony	N/A (prosecution)	Counsel’s failure to object to un‑noticed 404(b) evidence was deficient	Counsel’s performance was deficient, but defendant failed to show prejudice; conviction stands
Admission of comment about defendant wanting sex with victim’s 14‑year‑old daughter	Comment was relevant to show sexual purpose toward victim	Comment was irrelevant and highly prejudicial under MRE 402/403	Comment lacked probative value and was unfairly prejudicial, but its admission was harmless given substantial untainted evidence; no reversal
Prosecutorial remarks denigrating defense argument/counsel	Remarks responded to defense theory and were reasonable in context	Remarks impermissibly denigrated counsel and shifted focus from evidence	Viewed in context, remarks were a permissible rebuttal to defense theory; no prosecutorial-error reversal
Sufficiency of the evidence for CSC-IV (force/coercion and sexual purpose)	Victim and corroborating witness testimony established sexual contact, sexual purpose, and force	Victim not credible; conviction based largely on inadmissible propensity evidence	Viewing evidence in the light most favorable to prosecution, a rational jury could find all elements beyond a reasonable doubt; conviction affirmed

Key Cases Cited

People v Jackson, 498 Mich 246 (2015) (clarifies scope of MRE 404(b) and addresses notice and prejudice analysis)
People v VanderVliet, 444 Mich 52 (1993) (establishes analytical framework for admission of other‑acts evidence under MRE 404(b))
People v Mardlin, 487 Mich 609 (2010) (discusses relevance and limiting instructions in 404(b) context)
People v Carines, 460 Mich 750 (1999) (plain‑error standard for unpreserved constitutional claims)
People v Vaughn, 491 Mich 642 (2012) (Strickland standard applied to ineffective assistance claims)
People v Premo, 213 Mich App 406 (1995) (holding that pinching an intimate area can satisfy the force element for CSC-IV)