People v. McDonald
293 Mich. App. 292
Mich. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant was convicted by a jury of kidnapping, armed robbery, and first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I); he was acquitted of felony-firearm and two counts of CSC-II.
- Sentences were 225 months to 60 years on each conviction, with kidnapping and armed robbery served concurrently but consecutive to CSC-I as required by statute.
- The evidence predominantly came from DNA found in a hospital rape kit; multiple analyses linked defendant to sperm cells found in the kit.
- The victim could not identify defendant in a live lineup but did identify him in court and from an internet photo independently found by the victim.
- Dr. Loeckner testified about the examination though he did not perform it; the examining doctor did not testify, and the defense did not object to Loeckner’s testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Loeckner testimony | Krause: Dr. Loeckner’s testimony admissible under waiver/forfeiture principles. | Krause: It was impermissible hearsay and violated confrontation rights. | No reversible error; no prejudice shown. |
| Transcripts request and due process | State did not improperly deny review of transcripts. | Krause: denial affected fairness of trial. | No due process violation; no reversible error. |
| Sentencing guideline OV scoring | OV scoring misapplied or omitted points in OV3, OV7, OV19. | Krause: guidelines misinterpreted; some errors but not reversible on lack of cross-appeal. | Affirmed sentencing; minor over/under-scoring noted but not reversed. |
| OV19 post-offense threat basis | OV19 properly based on threats and continuing danger. | Krause: post-offense conduct beyond offense scope cannot support OV19. | OV19 properly scored; threats during kidnapping justify OV19. |
| Relationship of underlying felonies to CSC-I | PS: offenses inherently include related conduct (flight/retention). | Krause: challenge to how offenses merge/join for OV consideration. | Court properly treated offenses as continuing/overlapping; OV scoring maintained. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Carter, 462 Mich 206; 612 NW2d 144 (2000) (forfeiture and waiver principles for unpreserved errors)
- People v Carines, 460 Mich 750; 597 NW2d 130 (1999) (plain error standard for nonpreserved issues)
- People v Smith, 488 Mich 193; 793 NW2d 666 (2010) (sentencing guideline interpretation and OV scoring guidance)
- People v Ratkov (After Remand), 201 Mich App 123; 505 NW2d 886 (1993) (use of preliminary examination testimony at sentencing)
- People v Endres, 269 Mich App 414; 711 NW2d 398 (2006) (OV19 and threat-based scoring guidance)
- People v McGraw, 484 Mich 120; 771 NW2d 655 (2009) (OV scoring authority and post-offense conduct considerations)
- People v Smith, 261 Mich App 506; 681 NW2d 661 (2004) (bodily injury in CSC context can include infections)