People v. Solloway
316 Mich. App. 174
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Victim (MM), age 9, alleged defendant Timothy Solloway sexually penetrated him in July 2013 while MM slept in defendant’s one‑bedroom apartment; medical exam showed anal tearing and bleeding and defendant’s semen was found on a blanket.
- Police investigation found Solloway was a registered sex offender; officers seized two cell phones and learned of an email account in his father’s name that Solloway did not report.
- At bench trial Solloway was convicted of first‑degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC I) and two counts of failing to comply with the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA); he was sentenced as a fourth habitual offender to life on CSC I and concurrent 3–7 year terms on the SORA counts.
- On appeal Solloway challenged sufficiency/great‑weight of the CSC I conviction, the SORA convictions (constitutional vagueness), ineffective assistance of counsel, admission of other‑acts evidence, evidentiary exclusions, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the CSC I conviction and other evidentiary rulings, found no reversible ineffective assistance or misconduct, but vacated the SORA convictions as the statutory phrase “routinely used” in MCL 28.727(1)(h) and (i) is unconstitutionally vague.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency / great‑weight of CSC I evidence | Prosecution: victim testimony plus medical and DNA and prior similar act evidence suffice | Solloway: victim incredible; evidence insufficient | Affirmed — testimony, medical injuries, DNA, and prior act supported conviction |
| Vagueness of SORA reporting requirements | State: SORA provisions valid; AG ultimately conceded vacatur | Solloway: phrase “routinely used” is vague, gives no fair notice | Vacated SORA convictions — Court adopts Doe analysis that “routinely used” is unconstitutionally vague |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Prosecution: counsel conducted adequate investigation and strategy | Solloway: multiple alleged deficiencies (investigation, witnesses, experts, records) | Denied — claims unsupported on record and no prejudice given strong evidence |
| Admission of other‑acts evidence (prior abuse of nephew) | Prosecution: prior listed offense admissible under MCL 768.27a to show propensity and credibility | Solloway: evidence unfairly prejudicial and should be excluded under MRE 403 | Affirmed — Watkins factors favor admission; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Ericksen, 288 Mich. App. 192 (review standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- People v. Brantley, 296 Mich. App. 546 (victim testimony alone may support CSC conviction)
- People v. Watkins, 491 Mich. 450 (framework for admitting other‑acts evidence under MCL 768.27a and MRE 403 balancing)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (standard for reviewing preserved and plain error and circumstantial evidence inferences)
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (void‑for‑vagueness doctrine)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑part ineffective assistance standard)
- Doe v. Snyder, 101 F. Supp. 3d 672 (district court holding that “routinely used” in SORA is unconstitutionally vague)