People v. Masroor
313 Mich. App. 358
Mich. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Masroor, an imam who lived with his brother’s family, was convicted by a jury of 10 counts of first-degree and 5 counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct based on abuse of three nieces who were minors when the abuse began.
- Abuse was alleged to have begun in the early 2000s; victims disclosed years later after one of defendant’s daughters reported abuse.
- Prosecutor introduced "other-acts" testimony from defendant’s five children describing similar sexual abuse to corroborate the nieces’ accounts.
- Trial court admitted the other-acts evidence without performing an MRE 403 balancing analysis; defense objected and later challenged admission on appeal.
- Sentencing: trial court imposed substantial upward departures—35 to 50 years on each first-degree conviction—well above the advisory guidelines range; defendant challenged the departures and raised ineffective-assistance and Eighth Amendment claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of other-acts evidence | Other-acts testimony from defendant’s children was admissible under MCL 768.27a and relevant to plan, propensity, identity | Admission violated MRE 404(b)/MRE 403 because it was unduly prejudicial and trial court failed to balance | Court: Trial court should have done an MRE 403 balancing per People v Watkins, but error was harmless; evidence was highly probative and admission upheld |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | N/A (People opposed new trial) | Counsel failed to make a cogent Watkins balancing argument and cross-examinations elicited additional damaging testimony | Court: Even if counsel erred about Watkins, omission was not prejudicial; cross-examination choices were reasonable strategy; claim denied |
| Sentencing upward departures (procedural/standard of review) | Departures justified by heinous facts, multiple victims, use of religious/trust position; court articulated reasons | Departure excessive; guidelines mis-scored under Alleyne/Lockridge; disproportionate and procedurally flawed | Court: Because of binding People v Steanhouse, remand required for Crosby-modeled resentencing hearing for reconsideration under Lockridge; convictions affirmed but resentencing ordered |
| Eighth Amendment cruel and unusual punishment | N/A | 35-year minimums excessive given defendant’s age at release (will be elderly) | Court: Defendant failed to show sentences are cruel or unusual compared to state and other jurisdictions; claim denied |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Watkins, 491 Mich 450 (Mich. 2012) (MCL 768.27a admissibility must be balanced under MRE 403 and propensity inference weighed in favor of probative value)
- People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 (Mich. 2015) (Michigan sentencing guidelines rendered advisory after Alleyne; courts must consult guidelines and review departures for reasonableness)
- People v Steanhouse, 313 Mich App 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015) (mandates Crosby-modeled remand procedure for pre-Lockridge upward departures)
- Gall v United States, 552 U.S. 38 (U.S. 2007) (federal standard: guideline range is starting point; appellate review of departures is for reasonableness under abuse-of-discretion)
- United States v Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005) (remand framework when sentencing regime changes; court may decide whether to resentence fully informed under new regime)
- United States v Vowell, 516 F.3d 503 (6th Cir. 2008) (upholding very large upward sentence where district court gave individualized, detailed §3553(a)-based reasons)
- United States v Aleo, 681 F.3d 290 (6th Cir. 2012) (reversing extreme upward variance where court failed to distinguish defendant from similar offenders and overlooked mitigating factors)
- People v Milbourn, 435 Mich 630 (Mich. 1990) (proportionality principle: sentence must be proportionate to seriousness of offense and offender)