People of Michigan v. Richard Marc Meyers
329573
| Mich. Ct. App. | Feb 7, 2017Background
- Defendant Richard Marc Meyers, a lifetime-registered sex offender (prior CSC-I conviction), was charged with willfully failing to register under SORA; jury convicted him.
- Prosecution presented witnesses placing Meyers at a Battle Creek residence in late 2013/early 2014; Meyers’ wife testified he spent at most two nights away per week from the Vermontville address he had registered.
- After trial, Meyers appealed; this Court granted a remand to allow him to seek a new trial on a great-weight-of-the-evidence claim; the trial court denied the new-trial motion, finding the jury verdict supported by the witnesses’ credibility.
- At sentencing the court treated an incorrect guidelines computation as accurate (parties and DOC disputed OV/PRV points), and imposed 30–90 months (as a third-offense habitual offender) — a minimum that departed above the correct guidelines range.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but remanded for resentencing because the trial court imposed a departure sentence while operating under a misapprehension about the applicable guidelines minimum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was resentencing required because the sentence departed from guidelines without recognition or proportionality analysis? | Court (plaintiff-appellee) argued sentence reasonable based on protection, deterrence, and SORA purpose. | Meyers argued the 30‑month minimum was a departure and the court failed to recognize it or explain proportionality under Milbourn/Lockridge. | Remand for resentencing — court sentenced within a misperceived range and did not acknowledge the departure or apply proportionality review. |
| Did prosecutor commit misconduct (vouching/inflammatory remarks)? | Prosecutor defended credibility arguments and pointed to inconsistencies; argued remarks were proper advocacy. | Meyers claimed vouching, unsupported inflammatory statements, and disparagement affected fairness. | No plain error affecting substantial rights; misstatements were corrected, contextualized, or cured by jury instructions. |
| Was the verdict against the great weight of the evidence (warranting a new trial)? | Prosecution relied on witness testimony consistency sufficient for jury credibility findings. | Meyers argued testimony preponderated against guilty verdict and attacked witness credibility. | Trial court did not abuse discretion: credibility disputes do not warrant a new trial absent miscarriage of justice. |
| Should juror questioning be banned in Michigan? | Plaintiff implicitly supported existing practice under state precedent allowing judicial discretion. | Meyers urged alignment with jurisdictions prohibiting juror questions. | Court declined to change law; followed Michigan precedent leaving juror questioning to trial-court discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lockridge v. State, 498 Mich 358 (Michigan Supreme Court) (held Michigan sentencing guidelines mandatory portions unconstitutional; appellate review for reasonableness)
- People v. Steanhouse, 313 Mich App 1 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (endorsed Milbourn proportionality test post-Lockridge)
- People v. Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 (Michigan Supreme Court) (articulated proportionality principle for sentencing)
- People v. Lemmon, 456 Mich 625 (Michigan Supreme Court) (standard for new trial based on great-weight-of-evidence)
- People v. Unger, 278 Mich App 210 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (credibility attacks generally insufficient for new trial)
- People v. Heard, 388 Mich 182 (Michigan Supreme Court) (trial court discretion to permit juror questions)
- People v. Beasley, 239 Mich App 548 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (followed Heard on juror questioning)
- People v. Aldrich, 246 Mich App 101 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (standard for reviewing unpreserved prosecutorial misconduct claims)
- People v. Flanagan, 129 Mich App 786 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (prosecutor may argue credibility when testimony conflicts)
- People v. Bahoda, 448 Mich 261 (Michigan Supreme Court) (prosecutor may not vouch for witness credibility)
- People v. Graves, 458 Mich 476 (Michigan Supreme Court) (jurors presumed to follow curative instructions)
- People v. Plummer, 229 Mich App 293 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (when verdict may be vacated for nonrecord factors)
- People v. Green, 313 Mich App 526 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (standard of review for denial of new trial)
- People v. Lane, 308 Mich App 38 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- People v. Marji, 180 Mich App 525 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (prosecutor’s duty to vigorously advocate)
- People v. Thomas, 260 Mich App 450 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (framework for assessing prosecutorial misconduct)