People v. Roberts
292 Mich. App. 492
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Defendant advertised in a newspaper for models; a 17-year-old responded and met defendant with her father at his gym.
- Parents signed a release acknowledging the daughter was under 18 and would perform nudity in R- and X-rated capacity, with acknowledgment of the daughter’s authority to make her own decisions.
- Defendant informed the parents that no X-rated photos would be taken until the daughter was 18 and that pre-18 photos could not be distributed.
- The victim’s parents were barred from attending the photography session; defendant took the victim to his remodeled studio and then to his home for the session.
- At defendant’s home, he showed a pornography magazine, offered alcohol (which the victim declined), and began taking photos as he coerced the victim into undressing; he recorded sexually explicit acts without informing her.
- The victim testified she complied under fear, defendant extorted about potential earnings, and she later disclosed the acts to her mother, who called the police.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 750.145c(2) is void for vagueness | People contend the statute provides fair notice and a clear framework for emancipation by operation of law | Defendant argues the statute is vague and overbroad, infringing on First Amendment interests | No; statute provides fair notice and a defined emancipation-by-operation-of-law framework |
| Whether MCL 750.145c(2) is overbroad | People argue the statute furthers a compelling government interest in protecting children; does not chill protected conduct | Defendant asserts the statute overreaches and restricts lawful conduct between consenting individuals near the age of majority | Not overbroad; constitutional as applied to recording/photographing of prohibited acts involving a minor |
| Whether the searches and statements were properly admitted (home entry, Miranda, sequestration, polygraph) | People maintain entries were lawful and suppressions were properly denied; statements voluntary | Defendant claims improper entry, Miranda violation, sequestration breach, and polygraph weight misapplied | No reversible error; entry was consensual, Miranda warnings not required, sequestration not abused, polygraph weight properly limited |
| Whether downward departure from guidelines was warranted | People argue no error in sentencing; within guidelines, reasons sufficient | Defendant contends there were mitigating circumstances justifying a departure | No downward departure warranted; sentence affirmed within the guidelines |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Beam, 244 Mich App 103 (2000) (vagueness standard and fair notice in criminal statutes)
- Brian Hill, 269 Mich App 505 (2006) (statutory construction and emancipation-by-operation-of-law guidance)
- Sands, 261 Mich App 158 (2004) (statutory clarity and reasonable notice)
- Dillard, 115 Mich App 640 (1982) (rules on warrantless home entry and consent)
- Brown, 127 Mich App 436 (1983) (consent to search—burden on prosecution to prove valid consent)
- Mayes (After Remand), 202 Mich App 181 (1993) (custody determination for Miranda applicability)