People v. Love

• Decision Date: 06 August 1979
• Docket Number: Docket No. 77-2964
• Citation: 283 N.W.2d 781,91 Mich.App. 495
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Edward LOVE, Defendant-Appellant. 91 Mich.App. 495, 283 N.W.2d 781
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 781

283 N.W.2d 781

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Edward LOVE, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 77-2964.

91 Mich.App. 495, 283 N.W.2d 781

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Aug. 6, 1979.

Released for Publication Oct. 10, 1979.

[91 MICHAPP 497] Reid & Reid by Lawrence J. Emery, Lansing, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Peter D. Houk, Pros. Atty., Kathaleen Rae Price, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before V. J. BRENNAN, P. J., and BRONSON and CYNAR, JJ.

CYNAR, Judge.

On June 9, 1977, defendant was found guilty of charges of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny, M.C.L. § 750.110; M.S.A. § 28.305, and assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct involving sexual penetration. M.C.L. § 750.520g(1); M.S.A. § 28.788(7)(1). He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 5 to 15 years imprisonment on the breaking and entering count and 5 to 10 years [91 MICHAPP 498] imprisonment for the assault. Defendant now appeals as of right.

The complaining witness, Sheila Neff, testified that on the night of November 25, 1976, she had left the front door of her house unlocked so that her son could enter. She was awakened by the sound of footsteps and a door opening and closing. When there was no response to her calls, she became afraid and dialed the operator. Defendant entered her bedroom as she was explaining that an intruder was in her home. He attempted to knock the phone out of her hand and a struggle ensued. After being told the police were on the way, defendant began to leave, but instead changed his mind. He jumped on the complainant's bed, grabbed her wrists, and stated his intention to engage in sexual intercourse with her. After a further struggle he left the room.

At this point Mrs. Neff testified that she put on a bathrobe and walked into the hallway where she again encountered defendant. She pushed him away and ran out the front door. By this time, a police helicopter was overhead. A police officer appeared on the scene as she approached a neighbor's house.

Defendant was arrested while exiting from the complainant's house. A search of his person uncovered Mrs. Neff's wallet. The complainant also testified that a cassette recorder had been moved from a closet to a spot near the back door.

Defendant initially alleges that the trial court erred in permitting the prosecutor to use defendant's 1970 conviction of attempted breaking and entering for impeachment purposes.

As a general rule, the trial judge has discretion to admit or exclude evidence of defendant's past convictions when offered for impeachment purposes.[91 MICHAPP 499] People v. Jackson, 391 Mich. 323, 336, 217 N.W.2d 22 (1974). When called upon to rule on the admissibility of prior convictions the trial judge must recognize this discretion on the record, People v. Cherry, 393 Mich. 261, 224 N.W.2d 286 (1974), and should exercise his discretion with reference to three specific criteria: (1) the extent to which the offense bears on credibility; (2) the similarity of the prior offense to that charged; and (3) whether defendant's defense is severely impaired if the fear of impeachment leads him to choose not to testify. People v. Crawford, 83 Mich.App. 35, 39, 268 N.W.2d 275 (1978). The Crawford criteria are guidelines for the trial judge to follow in exercising his discretion and affirmative misapplication of these factors has been held to require reversal. See for example People v. Crawford, supra, and People v. Baldwin, 405 Mich. 550, 275 N.W.2d 253 (1979). However, there is no requirement that the trial judge refer to these factors or make on-the-record findings regarding them. People v. Roberson, 90 Mich.App. 196, 282 N.W.2d 280 (1979).

In the present case the trial judge ruled on defendant's motion to suppress the prior conviction as follows:

"THE COURT: Well, the Prosecutor can't use it for those purposes. He can merely bring it in for a view for the benefit of the jury for the purpose of attacking the credibility of the witness, his likelihood of telling the truth or not telling the truth under oath. The prior conviction does involve a crime of moral turpitude. I think it is fair for the jury to be informed of the entire past history of the Defendant in regard to their assessment of his likelihood of telling the truth under oath, the likelihood of his truth and veracity. The Defendant has his past life to live with, as all of us do. All of us have our past mistakes to explain. Mr. Love has the opportunity here to explain his past mistakes if he [91 MICHAPP 500] desires to, and the jury has the right to take this into account in determining credibility. I feel no useful purpose being served by Mr. Love taking the stand and appearing to the jury with a halo over his head and without giving the jury all the facts regarding his past life in so far as credibility is concerned."

We find no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion. His ruling indicates that he was aware of his discretion and that he believed the prior offense was probative of defendant's lack of credibility. We will not presume from a silent record that the other considerations set forth in Crawford, supra, were ignored in the present case. In the absence of an affirmative misapplication of the Crawford criteria, we conclude that the evidence was properly admitted for impeachment purposes.

Defendant next raises several constitutional challenges to various parts of the criminal sexual conduct act. Prior to discussing these, it is necessary to outline the pretrial motion giving rise to these challenges.

Prior to trial defense counsel moved for a bill of particulars on the assault count. He contended that under the criminal sexual conduct act the offense of assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct involving penetration could be committed in so many different ways that he was unable to defend against the charge. Specifically, he requested the prosecutor to designate which kind of First-degree criminal sexual conduct the defendant was alleged to have committed.

The trial judge granted defendant's motion, stating that the language of the assault count was too broad. ¹ The trial judge then read through each of [91 MICHAPP 501] the means of committing first-degree criminal sexual conduct listed in M.C.L. § 750.520b: M.S.A § 28.788(2) and asked the prosecutor which of these theories he was relying upon. The prosecutor responded that he was relying upon subsection (1)(c), sexual penetration under circumstances involving the commission of another felony. Alternatively he declared that he was relying upon subsection (1)(f)(i), using physical force to commit the penetration and causing personal injury.

Subsequently, defense counsel unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the charge based upon subsection (1)(c) of M.C.L. § 750.520b; M.S.A. 28.788(2)(1)(c) on the ground that it was overbroad. On appeal, he raises this argument once more contending that many sexual penetrations committed in the course of a felony are consensual and therefore noncriminal. He also contends that both an assault conviction based upon subsection (1)(c) and a conviction for the underlying offense of breaking and entering with intent to commit larceny would constitute multiple punishment for the same offense. Defendant further alleges that the element of "personal injury" required under subsection (1)(f)(i) is unconstitutionally vague.

We need not address these difficult constitutional problems in the context of the present case. This is because the trial judge erred in requiring the prosecutor to specify the theories of first-degree criminal sexual conduct under which he was proceeding. The statute under which defendant was charged, M.C.L. § 750.520g; M.S.A. § 28.788(7), reads as follows:

"(1) Assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct involving sexual penetration shall be a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years.

[91 MICHAPP 502] "(2) Assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct in the second degree is a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 5 years."

Subsection (2) of this statute requires an "intent to commit criminal sexual conduct in the second degree". In requiring the prosecutor to designate a theory of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, the trial judge must have read subsection (1) as requiring an intent to commit criminal sexual conduct in the first degree.

However, such a requirement is at odds with the plain language of the statute. All that is required under subsection (1) is an "intent to commit criminal sexual conduct involving sexual penetration". Such an intent is...