People v. Hale

• Decision Date: 12 July 1985
• Docket Number: Docket No. 75834
• Citation: 142 Mich.App. 451,370 N.W.2d 382
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ulysses HALE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. 142 Mich.App. 451, 370 N.W.2d 382
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 382

370 N.W.2d 382

The PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ulysses HALE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 75834.

142 Mich.App. 451, 370 N.W.2d 382

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted April 1, 1985.

Decided May 6, 1985.

Released for Publication July 12, 1985.

[142 MICHAPP 452] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., John D. O'Hair, Pros. Atty., Edward Reilly Wilson, Deputy Chief, Civil and Appeals, and Jame Shallal, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.

James R. Neuhard, State Appellate Defender (by Rolf E. Berg, Ann Arbor), for defendant-appellant.

Before BRONSON, P.J., and J.H. GILLIS and ALLEN, JJ.

ALLEN, Judge.

Charged with one count of first degree criminal sexual conduct, defendant was found guilty by a jury of third degree criminal sexual conduct, M.C.L. Sec. 750.520d(1)(b); M.S.A. Sec. 28.788(4)(1)(b). Sentenced November 2, 1983, to serve 10 to 15 years in prison, defendant appeals as of right.

The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court adequately instructed the jury on the defense of consent. The court's instructions on third degree criminal sexual conduct were taken directly from CJI 20:4:01 and 20:4:06. The instruction on consent, to which no objection was taken, was as follows:

"THE COURT: The defense claimed by the defendant is that he is not guilty of criminal sexual conduct because the complainant, Sharon Preston, consented to any and all sexual contact that the defendant had with the complainant. This defense is called consent. A willing act of sexual intimacy or intercourse between persons of sufficient age who are neither mentally defective, mentally incapacitated nor physically helpless is not criminal sexual conduct.

[142 MICHAPP 453] "If the evidence does not convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the sexual acts complained of were not consented to, then the defendant is not guilty of the crime of [sic ] conduct."

Defendant claims the instruction was inadequate because it predicated criminal responsibility on the victim's subjective consent rather than on defendant's reasonable belief that the victim consented. Counsel contends that, even in the absence of objection, the trial court should sua sponte have given an instruction similar to the instruction in People v. Mayberry, 15 Cal.3d 143, 155, 125 Cal.Rptr. 745, 542 P.2d 1337 (1975), that "if a defendant entertains a reasonable and bona fide belief that a prosecutrix voluntarily consented to engage in sexual intercourse," the jury should find the defendant not guilty. We are not persuaded.

The instruction in Mayberry was required by statute. No Michigan case law requires the trial court to define consent in terms of a defendant's reasonable and honest belief. Further, when an identical claim of error was raised in People v. Provience, 103 Mich.App. 69, 73, 302 N.W.2d 330 (1981); lv. den. 411...