People of Michigan v. Ray W Cole
332258
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 15, 2017Background
- Defendant Ray W. Cole was convicted by a jury of third-degree criminal sexual conduct (MCL 750.520d(1)(b)) for allegedly penetrating KS by force or coercion; sentenced to 60–180 months.
- Prosecution sought to admit RW’s testimony about an uncharged, subsequent sexual assault the same afternoon as other-acts evidence under MRE 404(b) to show a common scheme: defendant messaged both women for rides, lured each to the closed bar where he worked, locked the door, and assaulted them on the pool table.
- Trial court admitted RW’s testimony, giving limiting instructions that it be considered only for scheme/plan (and related issues such as consent and timing).
- Defense contested similarity and argued the evidence was impermissible propensity evidence; defendant also sought to cross-examine RW about bipolar disorder and alleged history of fabricating stories, which the court curtailed and precluded extrinsic proof.
- Jury convicted; on appeal defendant argued (1) erroneous admission of 404(b) evidence, (2) due process violation for conviction based on uncharged conduct, and (3) confrontation clause violation by limiting cross-examination about RW’s mental-health history. Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of other-acts evidence under MRE 404(b) (common scheme/plan) | RW’s testimony is admissible to show a common scheme: similar messaging, location (closed bar), locking door, pool-table assaults, same day | Incidents too dissimilar; admission is impermissible propensity evidence and prejudicial | Admission not an abuse of discretion: similarities supported common scheme/plan and relevance; probative value not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; limiting instructions given |
| Relevance to consent | RW’s assault evidence is probative on consent because both victims claim nonconsensual conduct despite defendant’s consent defense | KS and RW met defendant privately; presence in bar suggests consensual context, so RW not probative of consent | RW’s testimony relevant to consent; defendant’s contrary account goes to credibility for jury, not admissibility |
| Due process (convicted for uncharged wrong) | Admission served proper evidentiary purpose; MRE 404(b) safeguards protect against conviction for character | Admission allowed conviction based on uncharged conduct, violating due process | Argument not preserved and fails on plain-error review; 404(b) balancing addresses the due-process concern |
| Confrontation Clause / cross-examination of RW about bipolar disorder and fabrication history | Limiting cross-examination deprived defendant of right to attack witness credibility | Mental-health history not shown to bear on propensity to lie; extrinsic evidence of specific instances is within court’s discretion | No plain error: court reasonably limited irrelevant or collateral cross-examination; MRE 608(b) properly barred extrinsic proof; defendant had other means to attack credibility |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Roscoe, 303 Mich. App. 633 (2014) (standard of review for preserved evidentiary challenges)
- People v. VanderVliet, 444 Mich. 52 (1993) (framework for admitting other-acts evidence under MRE 404(b))
- People v. Sabin, 463 Mich. 43 (2000) (similar-misconduct evidence admissible to show common scheme or plan)
- People v. Knapp, 244 Mich. App. 361 (2001) (admission of other-acts evidence upheld where prior conduct mirrored charged offense)
- People v. Bass, 317 Mich. App. 241 (2016) (other-acts evidence relevance to elements of sex-offense charges)
- People v. Kelly, 317 Mich. App. 637 (2016) (defendant’s version goes to credibility, not admissibility of other-acts)
- People v. Ortiz, 249 Mich. App. 297 (2001) (limiting instructions can mitigate prejudice from other-acts evidence)
- People v. Crawford, 458 Mich. 376 (1998) (propensity evidence prohibition rooted in presumption of innocence and due process concerns)
- People v. Gaines, 306 Mich. App. 289 (2014) (admission of other-acts evidence evaluated under MRE 403 balancing)
- People v. Coy, 258 Mich. App. 1 (2003) (failure to raise constitutional objection below limits review on appeal)
- People v. Adamski, 198 Mich. App. 133 (1993) (scope of cross-examination is within trial court discretion)
- People v. Canter, 197 Mich. App. 550 (1992) (trial court may curtail cross-examination on collateral or irrelevant matters)
- People v. LeBlanc, 465 Mich. 575 (2002) (cross-examiner must accept witness’s answer on collateral matters; limits on extrinsic evidence under MRE 608(b))
- People v. Brownridge, 459 Mich. 456 (1999) (limits on introducing extrinsic evidence to impeach a witness who is not the victim)