People v. Galloway
858 N.W.2d 520
Mich. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant John Anthony Galloway was convicted by a jury of two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct (sexual contact with a child under 13) and sentenced to concurrent terms of 2–15 years.
- The complainant was the 10-year-old daughter of defendant’s long-term, live-in girlfriend; she testified about repeated touching and an occasion when defendant’s phone was recording in her room.
- Defense theory: the child disliked Galloway and fabricated allegations to remove him from her mother’s life; both child and mother had earlier expressed the child’s dislike of defendant.
- Mid-deliberation the jury asked what would happen if they could not reach a unanimous verdict; the trial court gave M Crim JI 3.12 and an extra statement permitting an internal, private foreperson poll to learn whether a majority believed a verdict could be reached.
- Nineteen minutes after that supplemental instruction the jury returned guilty verdicts on both counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Galloway) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deadlock jury instruction coercive | Instruction was proper and within court’s discretion to aid deliberations | Supplemental instruction (private foreperson poll option) coerced jurors and deviated from standard, warranting reversal | Instruction deviated from model but was not unduly coercive; no reversible error; counsel’s waiver not prejudicial |
| Ineffective assistance for counsel approving instruction | Counsel’s acceptance was reasonable trial strategy | Counsel’s approval waived claim and was constitutionally deficient | No Strickland prejudice shown on record; claim fails without Ginther hearing |
| Verdict against great weight of evidence | Evidence and child testimony supported conviction | Testimony was impeached/contradicted and possibly fabricated given child’s dislike | No plain error; credibility determinations for jury; verdicts not against great weight of evidence |
| Alleyne sentencing challenge | Alleyne requires jury findings for facts raising mandatory minimums | Alleyne invalidates judicial fact-finding that increases minimum sentence | Alleyne not applicable to Michigan sentencing guidelines per People v Herron; sentencing challenge rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Luther, 53 Mich. App. 648 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974) (prohibiting judicial questioning that reasonably reveals numerical jury division; recommends private foreperson poll)
- People v. Wilson, 390 Mich. 689 (Mich. 1973) (trial court inquiry into 11–1 split coercive; reversible error)
- People v. Sullivan, 392 Mich. 324 (Mich. 1974) (adopts ABA-style Allen/Allen-type instruction; substantial departures are reversible)
- People v. Goldsmith, 411 Mich. 555 (Mich. 1981) (instruction calling inability to reach verdict a failure of purpose is coercive and reversible)
- People v. Hardin, 421 Mich. 296 (Mich. 1984) (focus on "undue tendency of coercion" rather than verbatim adherence; assess instruction in context)
- People v. Pollick, 448 Mich. 376 (Mich. 1995) (timing of instruction matters; pre-deliberation vs mid- or post-deadlock coercive potential)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (U.S. 1984) (context for right to effective counsel)
- Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492 (U.S. 1896) (origin of charge addressing deadlocked juries)
- Brasfield v. United States, 272 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1926) (warning against inquiries that reveal numerical division and coerce jurors)