People of Michigan v. Todd Wisniewski
361978
Mich. Ct. App.Jan 8, 2025Background
- Todd Wisniewski was convicted by a jury of four counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I) and one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-II), all involving victims under 13 years old in Traverse City, Michigan.
- The convictions were based on testimony from three victims (I.Z., K.D., S.B.), with supporting evidence including digital text messaging, browser history demonstrating sexual interest in children, and testimony from adults familiar with the defendant and the victims.
- Additional evidence was introduced about Wisniewski's prior abuse of another child, J.W., under Michigan’s other-acts statute (MCL 768.27a).
- On appeal, Wisniewski argued for severance of the charges, exclusion of certain evidence, prosecutorial error, improper consecutive sentencing, and abuse of discretion in denying access to counseling records of a victim.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals reviewed for errors in the trial court’s evidentiary, procedural, and sentencing rulings, ultimately affirming the convictions and sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Severance of Charges | Joinder was proper because offenses were part of a common scheme/plan. | Joinder resulted in unfair prejudice; counsel ineffective for not seeking severance. | Joinder was proper; no due process violation; no ineffective assistance. |
| Admission of Evidence (Text/Internet Searches) | Evidence showed motive, intent, and state of mind; properly admitted. | Evidence was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. | Properly admitted as relevant and not unfairly prejudicial; no abuse of discretion. |
| Other-Acts Evidence (Testimony of J.W.) | Properly admitted under MCL 768.27a; notice requirement met. | Too dissimilar, remote, and prejudicial; lack of notice. | Properly admitted; notice sufficient; safeguards (jury instruction) minimized prejudice. |
| Prosecutorial and Procedural Errors | Conduct was within permissible bounds; jury instructions cured any error. | Prosecution vouched for witnesses, misrepresented evidence, prejudiced jury with the term "victims". | No plain error or prejudice; trial court's instructions were sufficient and lawful. |
| In Camera Review of Records | No specific, articulable need shown by defendant. | Alleged inconsistencies in testimony justified review. | Denial was proper; no threshold for review reached. |
| Consecutive Sentencing | Sentences were justified, reasonable, and proportionate given the facts. | Consecutive sentences not justified; lacked particularized reasons; disproportionate. | Sentences affirmed; trial court gave adequate reasons; sentences proportionate. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Williams, 483 Mich 226 (standards for joinder of offenses and when joinder is prejudicial)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich 750 (plain error standard for unpreserved claims)
- People v. Bergman, 312 Mich App 471 (standard for review of evidentiary rulings)
- People v. Stanaway, 446 Mich 643 (standards for in camera review of privileged records)
- People v. Steanhouse, 500 Mich 453 (proportionality principle in sentencing)
- People v. Norfleet, 317 Mich App 649 (standards for consecutive sentencing and particularized findings)