People of Michigan v. Robert Alexander Worley
331343
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 15, 2017Background
- Defendant Robert Worley was convicted by jury of four counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct for repeatedly abusing JV (his girlfriend’s daughter) from about age 11 through 19; the charged incidents occurred in 2005–2006 when JV was 15.
- JV testified to repeated vaginal, oral, and anal penetration beginning in Oklahoma (2001) and continuing in Michigan; she bore two children fathered by defendant.
- JV disclosed the abuse to a counselor and reported to police in March 2011; defendant was arrested in 2015 and tried in St. Clair Circuit Court.
- Defense theory: JV was not credible; sexual contact was consensual beginning when she was 16 and later as an adult; challenged timing/evidence and witnesses.
- Trial included other-acts evidence of earlier uncharged abuse (ages 11–15); JV’s mother was excused from testifying after invoking the Fifth Amendment.
- Court sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of 15–30 years; defendant appealed on multiple grounds and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prearrest delay | Delay did not prejudice defendant; prosecution justified delay | Four-year delay (report 2011 → arrest 2015) caused loss of evidence/witnesses and impaired defense | Denied: defendant failed to show actual and substantial prejudice; motion to dismiss properly denied |
| Admission of other-acts (MCL 768.27a / MRE 404(b)) | Other-acts admissible to show propensity and credibility under statute; probative value high | Evidence unduly prejudicial and dated; risk jury convicted on uncharged acts | Affirmed admission: probative value outweighed prejudice given statutory allowance and limiting instruction |
| Juror comment / mistrial | N/A (prosecution) | Excused prospective juror’s comment about defendant’s custody created presumption-of-innocence problem; asked for mistrial | Denied: comment brief, jurors instructed on presumption of innocence, no substantial possibility of influence |
| JV’s mother invoking Fifth | Court and prosecution properly protected witness; privilege valid | Trial court failed to adequately determine validity before excusing her | Affirmed: Dyer/Lawton standards met; mother had reasonable basis to fear incrimination |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | N/A (prosecution) | Counsel failed to adequately impeach JV with preliminary-exam inconsistencies, harming defense | Denied: impeachment and credibility attacks were presented; strategy reasonable and not prejudicial |
| Prosecutor misconduct in rebuttal | Prosecutor’s characterizations were proper response to defense closing | Remarks implied defense counsel misled jury and were improper | Denied relief: remarks were a fair response to defense argument and not clearly improper |
| Sentencing — OV 8 and OV 13 scoring | PSIR and testimony supported asportation and continuing pattern | Scoring was improper for lack of forcible movement/venue limits | Affirmed: OV 8 (asportation to bedroom) and OV 13 (pattern of sexual penetrations) properly scored by preponderance of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Woolfolk, 304 Mich. App. 450 (prearrest delay requires actual and substantial prejudice)
- People v Watkins, 491 Mich. 450 (MCL 768.27a allows other-acts propensity evidence; MRE 403 balancing)
- People v Dyer, 425 Mich. 572 (Fifth Amendment privilege — reasonable basis to fear incrimination)
- People v Barrera, 500 Mich. 14 (asportation for OV 8: victim carried/removed to place/situation of greater danger)
- People v Chelmicki, 305 Mich. App. 58 (asportation need not be forcible to support OV 8)