People v. Green
| Decision Date | 19 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 332835,332835 |
| Parties | PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAHAN SATATI GREEN, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
UNPUBLISHED
Wayne Circuit Court
Before: METER, P.J., and SAWYER and SHAPIRO, JJ.
Defendant appeals as of right his jury trial convictions of two counts of transporting a person for prostitution, MCL 750.459, two counts of accepting the earnings of a prostitute, MCL 750.457, and criminal conspiracy (conducting a criminal enterprise), MCL 750.159i. Defendant was sentenced, as a third habitual offender, MCL 769.11, to 20 to 40 years' imprisonment for each conviction. We affirm.
This appeal arises out of a prostitution ring run by defendant between 2006 and 2012 in southeastern Michigan. Defendant raises several issues on appeal. Although we do not find defendant's claims to be meritorious, each is addressed in turn.
Defendant cites to two instances where the jury was either erroneously instructed, or where a jury instruction should have been given, but was not. First, defendant takes issue with the non-standard jury instruction given with respect to the two counts of accepting earnings from a prostitute. Second, defendant argues that the trial court erroneously declined to give the accomplice witness testimony instruction, or alternatively, the disputed accomplice testimony instruction. With respect to both of defendant's claims, we disagree.
Claims of instructional error are reviewed as a whole de novo to determine whether any error occurred. People v Kowalski, 489 Mich 488, 501; 803 NW2d 200 (2011). The trial court's determination "that a jury instruction applies to the facts of the case" is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v Dupree, 486 Mich 693, 702; 788 NW2d 399 (2010). In the event of an instructional error, reversal is only warranted if "after an examination of the entire cause, it shall affirmatively appear that it is more probable than not that the error was outcome determinative." People v Lukity, 460 Mich 484, 495-496; 596 NW2d 607 (1999) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
MCR 2.512(D)(2) requires the jury be instructed using the Michigan Model Criminal Jury Instructions if "(a) they are applicable, (b) they accurately state the applicable law, and (c) they are requested by a party." Defendant was charged with two counts of accepting the earnings of a prostitute under MCL 750.457. At first blush, it appears that Michigan Model Criminal Jury Instruction (M Crim JI) 20.35 applies to the charge of accepting earnings from a prostitute. However, there are two ways to be convicted of accepting earnings from a prostitute under MCL 750.457: (1) Either a person "knowingly accepts, receives, levies, or appropriates any money or valuable thing without consideration of the earnings of any person engaged in prostitution," or (2) a person "knowing a person to be a prostitute . . . lives or derives support or maintenance, in whole or in part, from the earnings or proceeds of the prostitution of a prostitute[.]" See MCL 750.457(1), which states, in relevant part:
[a]ny person who knowingly accepts, receives, levies, or appropriates any money or valuable thing without consideration from the proceeds of the earnings of any person engaged in prostitution, or any person, knowing a person to be a prostitute, who lives or derives support or maintenance, in whole or in part, from the earnings or proceeds of the prostitution of a prostitute . . . is guilty of a felony[.]
Defendant was charged with the latter—knowing two of his victims to be prostitutes, defendant lived or derived support or maintenance from their prostitution earnings.
However, M Crim JI 20.35 only takes into account defendants who have knowingly accepted, received, levied, or appropriated any money or valuable thing without consideration, as opposed to defendants, such as the defendant in this case, who knowingly accepted money earned through prostitution and used it to live on, or to derive support or maintenance from. See M Crim JI 20.35, which reads:
We therefore conclude that M Crim JI 20.35 was inapplicable here.
Contrary to the assertion in his appellate brief, defendant did not specifically request the model instruction at trial, and therefore the trial court was not required to read the standard jury instruction. MCR 2.512(D)(2)(c). Likewise, defendant does not argue on appeal that the model criminal jury instruction should have been utilized. In fact, a non-standard jury instruction on the charge of accepting earnings from a prostitute is sufficient so long as the instruction fairly presented the issues to be tried and sufficiently protected defendant's rights. People v Dumas, 454 Mich 390, 396; 563 NW2d 31 (1997).
The following non-standard instruction was read to the jury:
[t]he defendant is charged in counts five and count [sic] six with accepting the earnings of a prostitute. To prove this charge, the [p]rosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: First, the defendant lived or derived support or maintenance from the earnings of a prostitute. . . . A prostitute is a person who does sexual acts for money. Second, defendant knew that [the prostitute] was a prostitute when defendant received the earnings. And third, the defendant knew when he received the earnings, it had been earned by prostitution.
The same language was used with respect to the second victim. Defendant takes issue with the fact that the non-standard instruction read to the jury omitted the element of consideration, which defendant argues applies to both provisions of MCL 750.457. Accordingly, defendant argues, the non-standard jury instruction failed to adequately instruct the jury. We disagree.
As written, the plain language of MCL 750.457 only requires that the jury evaluate whether consideration was given when a defendant is charged with knowingly accepting, receiving, levying, or appropriating money or valuables from the earnings of prostitutes, with the knowledge that that person was a prostitute. In comparison, the statute does not expressly require the jury to consider whether consideration was given when a defendant is charged with living or deriving support or maintenance from the earnings of the prostitution of a prostitute, with the knowledge that that person is a prostitute. Had the Legislature intended consideration to be an element of both provisions of the statute, it would have written MCL 750.457 that way. They did not. Because the language of MCL 750.457 is unambiguous, this Court must "presume that the Legislature intended the meaning clearly expressed "[and] no further judicial construction is required or permitted, and the statute must be enforced as written." People v Barrera, 278 Mich App 730, 736; 752 NW2d 485 (2008) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the trial court was not required to instruct the jury on consideration because it was not an element of the charged offense.
Further, when the non-standard instruction read to the jury is reviewed as a whole, there is no error. Kowalski, 489 Mich at 501. The jury was instructed that the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant lived, or derived maintenance or support, from the earnings of either victim. The jury was further instructed that the prosecutor must prove beyonda reasonable doubt that defendant knew the victims were prostitutes at the time he accepted their earnings, and that defendant further knew that the earnings were received from prostitution.
Next, defendant takes the position that the evidence at trial supports the conclusion that one of defendant's victims was actually an accomplice, and therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by not issuing the disputed accomplice testimony instruction or the accomplice witness testimony instruction found in M Crim JI 5.5 and 5.6, respectively.
Defendant cites to the victim's testimony in support of his position. Specifically, defendant argues that the victim considered defendant to be her boyfriend, and that she had been involved in prostitution before meeting defendant. The evidence at trial showed that the victim was the registered secretary of Creative Expectations, the corporation defendant used as a front for his criminal enterprise, and that she had a debit card in her name linked to the Creative Expectations bank account. Further, the victim would answer telephone calls from clients and set up dates for herself and the other women involved.
However, even if the accomplice instructions should have been given, "reversal [is] not required where the accomplice's potential credibility problems have been plainly presented to the jury by other means, such as through defense counsel's cross-examination of the alleged accomplice." People v Young...
To continue reading
Request your trial