People of Michigan v. Steven Harold McRorie
330576
| Mich. Ct. App. | May 16, 2017Background
- Defendant Steven McRorie was tried by jury for two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I); convicted on one count and acquitted on the other; sentenced as a fourth habitual offender to 25–40 years.
- Prosecution presented testimony from the complainant and a forensic interviewer; also admitted prior acts evidence under MCL 768.27a (testimony of N.L. about prior sexual assault by defendant).
- Defense suggested missing witnesses and argued inconsistencies and possible accidental touching; defendant maintained he did not touch the complainant at all.
- During closing and rebuttal, the prosecutor made statements about the “real world” nature of child sexual abuse, urged why jurors should believe the complainant, criticized defense strategies, invoked protecting children, and referenced prior unreported misconduct.
- Defense did not object at trial to the challenged prosecutorial remarks and later argued ineffective assistance for failure to object.
- Trial court refused defense request to instruct the jury on second-degree CSC (CSC-II) as a lesser included offense, reasoning CSC-II is a cognate offense and not a necessarily included lesser offense of CSC-I under Michigan law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor improperly vouched for or denigrated defense in closing/rebuttal | Prosecutor’s comments were proper argument tied to evidence and responsive to defense; not vouching | Remarks denigrated defense, vouched for complainant, appealed to sympathy and civic duty; prejudicial | No error; remarks reasonable in context, responsive to defense, not improper vouching or impermissible appeal |
| Whether prosecutor’s reference to defendant’s prior unreported misconduct was improper | Reference summarized properly admitted MCL 768.27a evidence and did not urge conviction merely because of past acts | Comment improperly encouraged conviction based on past acts, prejudicing jury | No error; comment was a permissible summary of admitted prior-act evidence |
| Whether failure to object rendered trial counsel ineffective | No prejudice because remarks were not improper; objections would have been fruitless | Counsel ineffective for failing to preserve objections to prosecutorial misconduct | Not ineffective; because no prosecutorial error, failing to object was not prejudicial |
| Whether trial court erred in declining CSC-II instruction (cognate lesser offense) | Cornell/Nyx preclude giving cognate lesser offense instructions; CSC-II not a necessarily included lesser of CSC-I | Requested instruction appropriate here due to evidence suggesting accidental touching; preventing it limited defense presentation | No error; CSC-II is a cognate offense not necessarily included in CSC-I and Cornell/Nyx preclude conviction on cognate lesser offenses even if defense requests it; defendant’s right to present defense not violated |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Reed, 449 Mich 375 (prosecutor vouching inquiry and context test)
- People v Bahoda, 448 Mich 261 (limitations on appeals to civic duty and denigrating remarks)
- People v Cornell, 466 Mich 335 (rule on necessarily included lesser offenses under MCL 768.32)
- People v Nyx, 479 Mich 112 (CSC-II is cognate, not necessarily included in CSC-I)
- People v Watkins, 491 Mich 450 (admissibility and purposes of MCL 768.27a prior sexual misconduct evidence)