People v. Bailey
310 Mich. App. 703
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Defendant (born 1982) lived with relatives and was charged with digital-vaginal penetration of three minors: MB (b.1996), AB (b.1994), and BS (b.1994). He is related to victims (uncle/great-uncle/cousin once removed).
- MB and AB testified to repeated abuse over multiple years beginning in childhood; MB’s Count I alleged assaults between Aug 1, 2008 and Nov 2008 (triggering a 25-year mandatory minimum under MCL 750.520b(2)(b)).
- AB alleged daily assaults until she left for boarding school in Aug 2008; Count III covered Jan 2001–Nov 2008. BS testified to a single incident in June 2007 and alleged nude photos were taken.
- Defendant was convicted by a jury on four counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I). Trial court sentenced Count I to 25–50 years and the other counts to 225 months–50 years (the latter three concurrent), and ordered Count I consecutive, producing a combined minimum of ~43 years, making parole eligibility at age ~79.
- Appeals court affirmed convictions on sufficiency, due process, evidentiary rulings, and prosecutorial-misconduct claims, but vacated the consecutive aspect of Count I and remanded for resentencing because the trial court lacked statutory authority to impose consecutive sentences for offenses not arising from the same transaction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence | Prosecutor: victims’ testimony alone suffices; circumstantial inferences support convictions | Defendant: delayed reporting, lack of forensic detail, and alleged lack of evidence for specified time period (Count I) and authority element (Count IV) | Convictions upheld — jury could believe victims; timing for Count I supported by testimony; relationship satisfied element for BS count |
| Due process — charging notice, joinder, unanimity | Prosecution: informations adequate given child victims’ inability to specify dates; joinder proper under MCR 6.120; general unanimity instruction sufficient | Defendant: information too vague (8-year windows; similar counts); joinder deprived fair trial; court should have given specific unanimity instruction | No plain error: time pleaded as near as possible for child victims; joinder permissible; specific unanimity instruction unnecessary because evidence was materially identical |
| Evidentiary rulings — other-acts (MCL 768.27a / MRE 404(b)) | Prosecution: evidence of other listed offenses against minors admissible for relevance (plan/system/credibility) | Defendant: other-acts were improper propensity evidence and unfairly prejudicial under MRE 403 | No plain error: MCL 768.27a and Watkins allow such evidence; probative value extended beyond propensity to show system/plan |
| Prosecutorial misconduct | Prosecution: argued reasonable inferences, addressed jurors’ common knowledge about delayed reporting, elicited victim-impact testimony relevant to credibility | Defendant: improper voir dire, sympathy appeals, misstating law, reliance on uncharged acts, arguing victims couldn’t have fabricated testimony | No reversible error — any potential prejudice could have been cured by instruction; defendant didn’t show resulting conviction of an actually innocent defendant or effect on trial fairness |
| Sentencing — consecutive mandatory-minimum placement | State: sentencing court has discretion under MCL 750.520b(3) to order consecutive terms when offenses arise from same transaction | Defendant: consecutive imposition lacked adequate statutory basis; offenses spanned different times and victims | Reversed as plain error: trial court lacked statutory authority because Count I did not arise from the same transaction as other counts; remand for resentencing with Count I concurrent |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | N/A (appellant contends counsel failed to move for separate trials, object to other-acts, request unanimity instruction, and challenge consecutive sentencing) | Defendant: counsel’s failures prejudiced defense | Majority: most objections would have been meritless (no deficiency); failure to contest consecutive-sentencing likely deficient, but resentencing moots further relief |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Ericksen, 288 Mich. App. 192 (standard for de novo review of sufficiency)
- People v Smith-Anthony, 494 Mich. 669 (jury may convict on complainant testimony alone)
- People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (review standards; plain-error framework)
- People v Palmer, 392 Mich. 370 (juror credibility determinations)
- People v Naugle, 152 Mich. App. 227 (adequacy of time allegations for child sexual offenses)
- People v Ryan, 295 Mich. App. 388 (same-transaction analysis for consecutive CSC-I sentences)
- People v Brown, 495 Mich. 962 (Supreme Court vacated multiple consecutive CSC-I sentences where not all penetrations arose from same transaction)
- People v Cooks, 446 Mich. 503 (when specific unanimity instruction is unnecessary)
- People v Watkins, 491 Mich. 450 (propensity evidence admissible under MCL 768.27a has probative value)