People v. King
297 Mich. App. 465
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Defendant was convicted by jury of two counts of first-degree CSC (CSC-I) for assaults on his 13-year-old granddaughter.
- Sentences: two concurrent terms of 12 to 30 years’ imprisonment plus lifetime electronic monitoring under MCL 750.520n.
- Defendant challenges evidentiary rulings: exclusion of alleged evidence that his daughter Jennifer coerced theft by her children; and preclusion of testimony about his reputation for interacting with teenagers at a detention facility.
- Trial evidence showed the victim spent the night at defendant’s apartment; multiple alleged sexual encounters and other acts were testified to by the victim and by other witnesses; defense presented contrary testimony.
- The court admitted some MRE 404(b) evidence about prior acts with JR and Jennifer; certain evidence about Jennifer’s theft was excluded as irrelevant or unduly prejudicial.
- On lifetime electronic monitoring, the panel majority followed Brantley, holding CSC-I convictions trigger lifetime monitoring under 520n notwithstanding victim age; a concurrence would have required vacating the order absent MCR 7.215(J).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of evidence about Jennifer theft | Jennifer’s theft evidence supports fabrication defense. | Evidence is relevant to plan/scheme under MRE 404(b) and to defendant’s defense. | Exclusion not abuse; denial affirmed |
| Exclusion of reputation/character evidence about teen interactions | Defense should elicit reputation testimony under MRE 404(a)(1). | Such testimony is admissible to show lack of propensity to commit offenses. | Trial court abused discretion but harmless error; no reversal |
| Lifetime electronic monitoring for CSC-I | Lifetime monitoring mandatory for CSC-I without victim-age limitation | Limitation should apply; Brantley misapplied | Ambiguous statutory construction; majority follows Brantley |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Brantley, 296 Mich App 546 (2012) (confirms CSC-I lifetime monitoring under 520n regardless of victim age; conflict panel suggested)
- People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484 (1999) (harmless error standard for preserved nonconstitutional trial errors)
- People v Unger, 278 Mich App 210 (2008) (de novo review of right to present a defense; plain error standard for unpreserved claims)
- People v Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998) (restrictions on the right to present evidence; state interests in trial fairness)
- People v VanderVliet, 444 Mich 52 (1993) (MRE 404(b) admissibility; relevance and prejudice balancing)
- People v Whitfield, 425 Mich 116 (1986) (reputation evidence admissibility under 404(a)(1) for an accused)
- People v Bowman, unpublished (2010) (persuasive unpublished authority cited in statutory interpretation discussions)