People v. Beck

Decision Date27 July 2022
Docket Number160668,160669
PartiesPEOPLE v. BECK
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

Argued on application for leave to appeal October 6, 2021.

SYLLABUS

James Beck was convicted, following a jury trial, in the Macomb Circuit Court of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I), MCL 750.520b, and three counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-II), MCL 750.520c. In 2016, defendant was charged with two counts of CSC-II related to allegations that he sexually assaulted his minor daughter, TG, and the case proceeded to a jury trial. During the jury's deliberations, one of the jurors notified the trial court that another juror might have done outside research on the case. The trial court polled the jury by written note to find out whether any of the jurors were aware of that research. Two of the jurors responded affirmatively Juror 255 stated that he had not researched the case itself but had asked his mother about "her past experience" without mentioning the case. Juror 337 told the court that he had heard that one of the jurors was "looking into another [in]discretion" that had occurred in the juror's family. The court discussed this information with the parties, and the prosecution asked the court to replace the two jurors with alternates, while defendant preferred to allow the seated jury to continue its deliberations or to further question the two jurors to obtain more information. The trial court rejected the parties' requests and determined that the entire jury was tainted and declared a mistrial. The case was set for retrial in 2017. In 2017, while awaiting retrial, defendant was accused of sexually assaulting CS, the minor friend of one of his children, and was charged with two counts of CSC-I and one count of CSC-II. One of the CSC-I counts was charged as "person under 13, defendant 17 years of age or older" under MCL 750.520b(2)(b), which mandates a minimum sentence of 25 years in prison. The other CSC-I count in the information did not cite MCL 750.520b(2)(b) and stated only that the victim was "under 13," without also alleging that defendant was 17 years old or older. The 2016 charges and the 2017 charges were jointly tried in a second trial, and defendant was found guilty of all charges. The court sentenced defendant to 25 to 60 years in prison for each count of CSC-I and 57 to 180 months in prison for each count of CSC-II. Defendant appealed, and the Court of Appeals, Meter, P.J., and O'Brien and Swartzle, JJ affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion. Defendant applied for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court ordered and heard oral argument on whether to grant defendant's application for leave to appeal or take other action, instructing the parties to address whether defendant's second trial was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the state or federal Constitutions and whether the trial court had improperly imposed a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years for the count of CSC-I that was not charged as carrying this minimum sentence. 506 Mich. 946 (2020).

In an opinion by Justice Viviano, joined by Chief Justice McCormack and Justices Bernstein and Clement, the Supreme Court held:

The trial court did not conduct a sufficient inquiry to support a finding of manifest necessity before declaring a mistrial as to the 2016 charges; therefore, the court's declaration of a mistrial was an abuse of its discretion and the retrial on those charges violated double-jeopardy protections. Accordingly, defendant's convictions related to the 2016 charges had to be vacated. However, defendant was not entitled to a new trial, resentencing, or other relief regarding the 2017 charges. Contrary to defendant's contention that the remaining convictions were tainted by the admission of evidence related to the 2016 charges, his daughters' testimony would have been admissible other-acts evidence even if defendant had been tried separately on the 2017 charges. The trial court did commit plain error by imposing a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years under MCL 750.520b(2)(b) for the second count of CSC-I charged in 2017, but resentencing was not necessary because the error did not affect the fundamental fairness of the trial.

1. Under both the state and federal Constitutions, an accused cannot be placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense. If a trial is concluded prematurely, a retrial for that offense is prohibited unless the defendant consented to the interruption or a mistrial was declared because of manifest necessity. Determining whether manifest necessity exists requires balancing the competing concerns of the defendant's interest in completing the trial in a single proceeding before a particular tribunal and the strength of the justification for a mistrial. Before declaring a mistrial the trial court must consider whether a mistrial is appropriate on the record and discuss alternatives with defense counsel and the prosecutor. When the trial court does not follow these procedures, there is no manifest necessity for declaring a mistrial. In this case, the standard for declaring a mistrial was not satisfied. Although the trial court polled the jury and briefly discussed the matter with counsel, including each side's proposed alternatives, the court's consideration of the matter was too abrupt, and its conclusions were not supported by sufficient evidence. The nature of the juror's outside research was unclear to the court, but instead of further probing the juror's research and whether it would affect the proceedings, the court summarily declared a mistrial. Further, although the court learned when the jury was polled that only one other juror knew about the outside research, the court nonetheless concluded that the entire jury was tainted. The court did not find a justification for mistrial that outweighed defendant's interest in continuing the trial. Therefore, the court's inquiry was insufficient to find manifest necessity, and retrial on the 2016 charges violated the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the federal and state Constitutions.

2. Defendant argued that he was entitled to a new trial on the 2017 charges because his convictions on those counts were tainted by the admission of evidence related to the 2016 charges during the joint trial. At issue was whether the testimony of defendant's daughters and his ex-wife would have been inadmissible propensity evidence in a trial on only the 2017 charges. Propensity evidence is generally inadmissible under MRE 404(b)(1). However, MRE 404(b)(1) is superseded by MCL 768.27a when a criminal defendant is accused of committing a listed offense, including CSC-II and fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-IV) against a minor. Under the statute, evidence that a defendant committed another listed offense against a minor is admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant. Therefore, evidence that defendant committed CSC-II or CSC-IV was admissible under MCL 768.27a(1). The pertinent question then was whether the challenged testimony qualified as evidence of CSC-II or CSC-IV. The 2016 victim's testimony that defendant touched her breasts and her genitals over her clothing when she was between 10 and 12 years old satisfied the elements of CSC-II, and defendant's other daughters' testimony also represented evidence that defendant committed CSC-II or CSC-IV; accordingly, the challenged evidence was admissible under MCL 768.27a(1). However, evidence that is admissible under MCL 768.27a must also comply with MRE 403. Under MRE 403, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Considerations under MRE 403 may include (1) the dissimilarity between the other acts and the charged crime, (2) the temporal proximity of the other acts to the charged crime, (3) the infrequency of the other acts, (4) the presence of intervening acts, (5) the lack of reliability of the evidence supporting the occurrence of the other acts, and (6) the lack of need for evidence beyond the complainant's and the defendant's testimony. When applying MRE 403 to evidence admissible under MCL 768.27a, courts must weigh the propensity inference in favor of the probative value of the evidence rather than its prejudicial effect. In this case, the analysis would have weighed in favor of admitting the evidence. TG and defendant's other daughters alleged that defendant engaged in acts generally similar to those alleged by CS, many of the acts were temporally proximate, no intervening acts occurred, and there was a need for additional evidence to support CS's allegations. In sum, the probative value of the other-acts testimony was not outweighed by unfair prejudice. With regard to the testimony of defendant's ex-wife, defendant's arguments were made in conclusory fashion and the Court did not address them.

3. Under MCL 750.520b(2)(b), when CSC-I is committed by a person aged 17 years or older against a person under the age of 13 the offense carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years. In this case, the trial court imposed a mandatory minimum sentence of 25 years for both of defendant's remaining convictions for CSC-I, despite the fact that the information only stated that one of the CSC-I charges carried that sentence. Under the Sixth Amendment, a criminal defendant has the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. A constitutionally sufficient charging document contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs the defendant of the charge against which the defendant must defend. The elements of an offense include those facts that increase both the ceiling and the floor of the punishment for an offense; this includes facts that increase...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT