People v. Aspy
808 N.W.2d 569
Mich. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant convicted of child sexually abusive activity and using a computer to commit that offense; sentences run concurrently.
- In Indiana, defendant communicated online with Nancy Popham posing as a 14-year-old; chat suggested underage victim and planned meeting in Michigan.
- Popham and others steered discussions toward sexual activity; defendant arranged a camping meetup and traveled toward Michigan.
- An undercover investigation involved calls to the decoy; defendant was arrested in Michigan after locating a provided address.
- Michigan territorial-jurisdiction analysis focused on MCL 762.2 and whether acts occurred or consequences occurred within Michigan.
- Defendant raised issues of venue and ineffective assistance of counsel related to jurisdiction and defense presentation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does MCL 762.2 confer jurisdiction for preparing to commit the crime? | Gayheart requires some Michigan act/effect; evidence insufficient. | No proof of partial acts/conspiracy/attempt within Michigan; jurisdiction lacking. | Jurisdiction supported; acts in Michigan suffice for preparation/attempt. |
| Does Michigan have territorial jurisdiction for using a computer to commit the offense when, online, activities originated in Indiana? | Indicates no Michigan act; no jurisdiction. | Internet communications intended to terminate in Michigan establish jurisdiction under 750.145d(6). | Jurisdiction exists; communications intended to terminate in Michigan. |
| Was defense counsel ineffective for not challenging jurisdiction at trial? | Defense should have preserved jurisdiction challenge. | Counsel reasonably pursued defense; no prejudice. | No ineffective assistance; sufficient evidence supported jurisdiction. |
| Was venue properly Kent County or improperly Ottawa County? | Venue arguments go to trial strategy; Kent proper. | Venue chosen improperly; Indiana acts suggest Ottawa County better. | Venue ruling upheld; no prejudice shown; trial strategy governs. |
| Did the trial court err in denying an affirmative defense under MCL 750.145c(6) related to emancipated adults? | Legislative amendment provides emancipation defense if victim is emancipated. | Defendant sought to prove victim was an adult; affirmative defense applicable. | Defense not applicable; defendant sought to show adult rather than emancipated minor. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Gayheart, 285 Mich App 202 (2009) (expands Michigan territorial jurisdiction under MCL 762.2)
- People v Thousand, 241 Mich App 102 (2000) (defines preparation and attempt concepts under jurisdictional analysis)
- People v Adkins, 272 Mich App 37 (2006) (preparation to arrange can confer jurisdiction; confirms non-actual child required)
- People v Mette, 243 Mich App 318 (2000) (affirmative defense does not negate essential elements)
- People v Houthoofd, 487 Mich 568 (2010) (venue harmless-error analysis and non-structural nature of venue issues)