Haskell v. Berghuis

• Decision Date: 26 February 2010
• Docket Number: Case No. 2:07-CV-11679.
• Citation: 695 F. Supp.2d 574
• Parties: Craig Michael HASKELL, Petitioner, v. Mary BERGHUIS, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

695 F. Supp.2d 574

Craig Michael HASKELL, Petitioner, v.Mary BERGHUIS, Respondent.

Case No. 2:07-CV-11679.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

February 26, 2010.

Erwin S. Chemerinsky, Duke University Law School, Durham, NC, for Petitioner.

Andrew L. Shirvell, MI Dept. of Atty. Gen., Lansing, MI, for Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND GRANTING IN PART A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

GEORGE CARAM STEEH, District Judge.

Petitioner, Craig Michael Haskell, is a state inmate currently incarcerated at Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility in Ionia, Michigan.On August 15, 2003, a jury in Livingston County, Michigan, found Petitioner guilty¹ of four counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct ("CSC"), Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520b(1)(f), one count of second-degree CSC, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.520c(1)(f), and aggravated domestic violence, Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.81a(2), for beating and sexually assaulting his former girlfriend.Petitioner was sentenced to concurrent terms of twelve to thirty years for each count of the first-degree CSC convictions, ten to fifteen years for the second-degree CSC offense, and one year in Livingston County Jail for the aggravated domestic violence conviction.He filed a petition, through counsel, for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.For the reasons stated below, the Court will deny habeas relief and grant, in part, a certificate of appealability.

I.BACKGROUND

The convictions arose from Rae Russell's allegations that Petitioner sexually assaulted her on the evening of May 17, 2002.Ms. Russell was a former girlfriend of Petitioner, and was nineteen years of age at the time.It is undisputed that Petitioner visited Ms. Russell on that evening and that she was physically assaulted by Petitioner.However, Petitioner asserts that he struck Ms. Russell in the face while he was experiencing a seizure.(Pet.at 6).He denies that he sexually assaulted Ms. Russell or that he threatened her with a pair of scissors.Id.

Ms. Russell testified that she and Petitioner dated in high school over a two year period.(Trial Tr., Vol. Iat 186).While they were both attending different colleges, their relationship ended in the fall of 2001.Id. at 187.Petitioner was facing some family, school, and job related challenges and reached out to Ms. Russell in an effort to reconcile.Id. at 188-90.Petitioner expressed his suicidal thoughts to Ms. Russell.Id. at 117, 220-21, 227, 231.A few days later on May 17, 2002, Petitioner went to Ms. Russell's home, where she lived with her parents, at about 7:30 p.m. Id. at 191.

Ms. Russell further testified that the two rented a movie and were watching a television sitcom before the movie when Petitioner became angry that Ms. Russell would not sit with him.Id. at 191-92, 222, 228.Petitioner began to cry, started talking about killing himself, said "mean things" to her, and threatened to send derogatory notes to her father.Id. at 192-93.Ms. Russell tried to console him when his demeanor completely changed.Id. at 225-26, 242.Ms. Russell stated that Petitioner was not his normal self and at that point he: (1) punched her in the left eye; (2) hit her in the head and slammed her head against a dresser; (3) put his hands around her throat and then one hand down her throat to keep her quiet; (4) threatened to kill her family if she made any noise; (5) continued to hit her; (6) disrobed her; (7) called her a whore; (8) digitally penetrated her; (9) had sexual intercourse with her; and (10) threatened her with a pair of scissors.Id. at 196-202.

Ms. Russell also testified that she begged Petitioner to stop, but he did not seem to hear her.Id. at 202.Suddenly, however, Petitioner appeared to "snap out of it" and he stopped.Id. at 245;Vol. IIat 51.Again, Petitioner's temperament changed; he was shaking, apologetic, and repeatedly said "what have I done?"(Trial Tr., Vol. Iat 245, 247;Vol. IIat 51).Ms. Russell told Petitioner to go home and to get help from his parents.(Trial Tr., Vol. Iat 103-04, 239, 246).Ms. Russell testified that, before this incident, Petitioner had never forced himself upon her, threatened her or her family, or assaulted her during their relationship.Id. at 224.

Janice Haskell, Petitioner's mother, testified that when he came home from college for Easter break, he"seemed different,"(i.e., tired, not sleeping well, weight loss, etc.)(Trial Tr., Vol. IIat 186).Also according to Ms. Haskell's testimony, Petitioner came directly home after he left Ms. Russell's home and told her that he hit Ms. Russell and was very distraught (i.e., pacing, holding his head, acting frantic and confused, crying, asking for help, etc.).Id. at 209-10.Ms. Haskell took Petitioner to the Psychiatric Emergency Room at the University of Michigan Hospital, where he stayed for ten days in the psychiatric unit under the treatment of Dr. Kenneth Pitts.When Petitioner was discharged, his tentative diagnosis was psychosis NOS, or "not otherwise specified."(Trial Tr., Vol. IIIat 90).

In Ms. Russell's initial statement to the police, she stated in part as follows:

He had been having some school and family problems and needed to talk them out with me.When I couldn't help him he didn't want him back . . . when I couldn't help him and didn't want him back he hit me four or five times in the head.Then he muffled my screams then he felt bad and I told him to leave and he left out the front door.

(Trial Tr., Vol. IIat 20).Ms. Russell did not indicate to the police that she was sexually assaulted, threatened with scissors, or that Petitioner put his hand/fist down her throat while she was being violently raped.(Id. at 20-21).While at the Emergency Room on the evening of the assault: (1) Ms. Russell denied being sexually assaulted; (2)she denied that she had sexual relations that evening; (3) there was no evidence of tenderness around her neck area; (4) there were no fingerprint marks around her neck; and (5) no sperm or seminal fluid was found on any of Ms. Russell's clothing or on any swabbed areas.(Trial Tr., Vol. IIat 47, 126-27, 144).

However, the following day, after Ms. Russell's mother, Diane Russell, confronted her about blood in her underwear, Ms. Russell told her mother that she had been sexually assaulted.(Trial Tr., Vol. I, at 206 & Vol. IIat 36, 67 & 82).Subsequently, the police were called back, another statement was made to the police, and Ms. Russell went back to the hospital, submitting to a rape examination.(Trial Tr., Vol. Iat 207 & Vol. IIat 67-68).In Ms. Russell's second statement to the police, she indicated that Petitioner threatened her with scissors by holding them to her throat, and that he put his hands down her throat.(Trial Tr., Vol. Iat 233, 236).Dr. Ramstack, the emergency room doctor who examined Ms. Russell during her second hospital visit, testified that there were no signs of sexual trauma to the vaginal or anus areas nor evidence of forceful sexual contact.(Trial Tr., Vol. IIat 119, 130-31).

Dr. Kenneth Pitts, Petitioner's treating psychiatrist, testified at trial that the assault upon Ms. Russell was brought on by a complex partial seizure ("CPS")², which left Petitioner incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his conduct, and that Petitioner could not conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.Id. at 107-09.Dr. Lisa Marquis, the prosecution's expert witness, is a Ph.D. psychologist from the Center of Forensic Psychiatry, who evaluated Petitioner.She agreed that Petitioner suffered from a mental illness, and did not rule out that he suffered from a CPS disorder.(Trial Tr., Vol. Illat 176-77, 201, 206-07).However, she disagreed that he did not appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct and that he was not able to conform his behavior to the requirements of the law.Id.The prominent issues at trial were whether Petitioner was sane at the time he committed the assault, and whether Ms. Russell's version of events was a fabrication.

II.PROCEDURAL HISTORY

After Petitioner's state court conviction, he filed an appeal of right and raised the following claims:

I. Craig Haskell maintained his innocence at sentencing in the statements he made to the court.In passing sentence the court repeatedly referred to Haskell's statements and tried to get him to admit guilt.The court violated Haskell's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights by considering his refusal to admit guilt in its sentence.Further the trial court incorrectly scored the sentencing guidelines.For all of these reasons Haskell is entitled to a resentencing.

II.Prior trial counsel destroyed Haskell's ability to effectively defend himself at trial.Counsel lied to the police about Haskell's clothes, failed to prepare for trial, and failed to develop the insanity defense.But worst of all, counsel lied to the trial court about non-existent threats, which caused Haskell to be locked up, turned the court against Haskell, and created a situation where trial counsel could not effectively present the insanity defense.Therefore, he is entitled to a new trial.

III.The defense sought to introduce the statements Haskell made about the voices in his head when he burst into this parents bedroom after this incident.The statements about the voices fell within MRE 803(2) because they were excited utterances.When he"woke up" from his complex partial seizure, Haskell obviously observed a startling event— the injuries to Russell.When he arrived home shortly afterwards, he was obviously still under the stress of the event.Therefore, the court erred in excluding these statements.

IV.The jury instruction on Mental Anguish (CJI 2d 20.9) as given was unfairly prejudicial to Haskell.The instruction lists nine things for the jury to weigh when deciding whether the complainant suffered mental anguish.Seven of those factors were not supported by the

...