People of Michigan v. Thomas James Stansbury
365894
Mich. Ct. App.May 21, 2025Background
- Defendant Thomas James Stansbury was convicted by jury of second-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-II) for acts committed against a minor living in his household, spanning 2013-2018.
- The conviction was based on testimony that Stansbury assaulted the victim, who was eight years old at the time of the first assault, on multiple occasions.
- At trial, a pretrial order excluded the prosecution from introducing other-acts evidence, particularly regarding prior domestic violence relevant to the credibility of the victim’s change in testimony.
- The defense did not impeach the victim with her prior inconsistent statement from a 2015 CPS investigation, based on trial strategy to avoid opening the door to the excluded evidence.
- Following conviction, Stansbury challenged his counsel's effectiveness, the pretrial order, and constitutionality of sex offender registration and lifetime electronic monitoring (LEM).
- The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's decisions and affirmed both the conviction and sentence, including lifetime SORA registration and LEM.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel acted within reasonable strategy norms | Counsel should have impeached the victim with prior inconsistent statement | No ineffective assistance; trial strategy reasonable |
| Pretrial order excluding other-acts evidence | Order properly limited prosecution evidence | Order improperly precluded defense impeachment of victim | Order was not overbroad; did not harm defense |
| Lifetime SORA registration as punishment | Registration is not punishment, thus constitutional | Registration is cruel/unusual punishment | SORA not punishment; constitutional |
| Lifetime LEM as cruel/unusual punishment | LEM proportionate and consistent with precedent | LEM is disproportionate and unconstitutional | LEM not cruel/unusual; supports public interest |
| LEM as unconstitutional search | LEM monitoring is reasonable under Fourth Amendment | LEM is an unreasonable search | LEM is reasonable and constitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich 38 (Mich. 2012) (proper evaluation of ineffective assistance claims requires inquiry into counsel's strategy)
- People v. Douglas, 496 Mich 557 (Mich. 2014) (defense counsel's strategic choices in cross-examining child victims may be reasonable and not ineffective)
- People v. Cole, 491 Mich 325 (Mich. 2012) (lifetime electronic monitoring for certain sex crimes is mandatory and punitive)
- People v. Hallak, 310 Mich App 555 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015) (lifetime electronic monitoring not disproportionate for CSC-II)
- People v. Lukity, 460 Mich 484 (Mich. 1999) (harmless-error rule: reversal only for prejudicial errors)