People v. Mackle

• Decision Date: 19 September 2000
• Docket Number: Docket No. 204299.
• Citation: 241 Mich. App. 583,617 N.W.2d 339
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick J. MACKLE, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

617 N.W.2d 339

241 Mich. App. 583

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Patrick J. MACKLE, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 204299.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted June 14, 2000, at Detroit.

Decided June 30, 2000, at 9:00 a.m.

Released for Publication September 19, 2000.

Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, David G. Gorcyca, Prosecuting Attorney, Daniel L. Lemisch, Chief, Appellate Division, and John S. Pallas, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Neil J. Leithauser, Troy, for the defendant.

Before O'CONNELL, P.J., and MICHAEL J. KELLY and WHITBECK, JJ.

O'CONNELL, P.J.

In this case, a jury convicted defendant of twelve counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC I), M.C.L. § 750.520b(1); MSA 28.788(2)(1), and one count of kidnapping, M.C.L. § 750.349; MSA 28.581. The trial court sentenced defendant to fifteen to thirty years' imprisonment, with credit for 2,799 days served, for kidnapping and to the same sentence for each CSC I count. On appeal as of right, defendant contends that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to support his conviction under M.C.L. § 750.1520b(1)(f); MSA 28.788(2)(1)(f) (the "personal injury" variety of CSC I), and that his CSC I and kidnapping convictions cannot withstand double jeopardy analysis. Defendant further argues that his extradition to Michigan from Canada violated a treaty between the United States and Canada, as well as his right to a speedy trial. We affirm, but remand to the trial court with instructions to amend the judgment of sentence.

I

Complainant testified at trial that she met defendant in April 1989 and that a relationship thereafter ensued. She understood that defendant developed property, promoted a rock band, and produced movies. According to complainant, she ended the relationship in September 1989, but defendant persistently attempted to remain in touch with her. Complainant agreed to meet him in a restaurant on October 5, 1989. At that meeting, complainant told defendant that she did not want to pursue the relationship further.

Complainant testified that defendant was initially calm and polite that night, but that after dinner, in the restaurant parking lot, defendant pulled her out of her car and shoved her into his own. Defendant insisted on continuing the conversation and began driving, over her objections. When complainant struggled, defendant pulled over, tied her hands, then continued to drive. According to complainant, she continued to struggle, and defendant continued to subdue and constrain her until they reached a motel in Port Huron. Defendant told her that he was taking her to see some of his Mafia friends.

Complainant testified that at the motel, over her further objections and resistance, defendant had sexual intercourse with her while her hands were tied. According to complainant, she tried to leave the room, but defendant restrained her, bound her ankles with neckties, and tied her wrist to his own. The following morning defendant announced that he was going to have sex with her again. When she resisted, he repeatedly struck her with an open hand and then forced her to have intercourse. Afterward, the two argued furiously, and defendant responded by strangling her with a necktie for a minute or two. Defendant again forced her to endure sexual intercourse. Complainant observed that defendant seemed to derive heightened pleasure from her resistance.

Early in the afternoon, defendant tied complainant's hands and placed her back in his vehicle. Defendant later untied her and allowed her to eat some pizza, at which time he informed her that he would take her to see some Mafia members, with whom she would remain until she agreed to marry him. Complainant testified that she then tried to leave the vehicle, but that defendant tied her up again and put her in the back seat. Defendant also punched her leg and slapped her face. He continued to drive around town until approximately 5:00 p.m., when he pulled behind a building, penetrated her digitally, and then pushed her legs apart and performed cunnilingus.

Afterward, defendant drove to another motel in Port Huron and obtained a room. Once inside, defendant told complainant that if she "behaved," he would take her home in the morning. Complainant reported that defendant then asked her to perform oral sex on him, which she did, believing her freedom depended on it. Afterward, defendant informed complainant that if she became pregnant with his child, he would terminate the pregnancy by punching her in the abdomen. In the course of this discussion, defendant became angry and forced complainant into a sauna that was in the room and turned it to its highest setting. He knew that she was claustrophobic. Defendant became frustrated when the sauna failed to function properly, so he pulled her out, threw her onto the bed, and then forced her to have intercourse.

Complainant testified that defendant informed her that he was going to arrange for the Mafia to pick up and kill a member of her family. He later took her to a restaurant, but admonished her not to cause trouble. According to complainant, the two brought the food back to the room, whereupon complainant discovered a steak knife in the package and tried to attack defendant with it, but defendant overpowered her.

The morning of the next day, October 7, defendant again tied complainant up and forced her to have intercourse. Defendant learned later in the day that complainant's father had asked the police to search for her. Defendant then insisted that complainant make a call to quell the investigation. Defendant threatened to direct a Mafia member to kill her son, so complainant called defendant's mother and encouraged her to telephone complainant's father and pass on an innocent explanation concerning her whereabouts.

Afterward, defendant put complainant in his vehicle, spent some time driving around, and then informed her that because of the possibility of a missing person investigation in the United States, he had made arrangements to have Mafia members pick her up in Canada. He ordered her to drive across the border because he lacked a valid driver's license. Under the pressure of threats to her son's life, complainant drove across the border without incident.

Complainant testified that she remained with defendant in Canada from that afternoon until she escaped on October 12. During this time, they remained in Canada and stayed in a different motel every night. Defendant continuously forced her to engage in sexual intercourse with him. She recounted finally leaving the motel by herself early in the morning of October 12. Complainant explained that defendant told her that Mafia members were going to kill her within a few days, and that he removed her jewelry to make her body difficult to identify. She was able to free herself while defendant slept. She left the motel in defendant's vehicle and called the police, and also her family, from a nearby truck stop. A Canadian court tried and convicted defendant in connection with the events occurring in Canada, and defendant served a sentence of at least five years in a Canadian prison. On the expiration of defendant's Canadian sentence, the Oakland County prosecutor secured defendant's extradition for trial in Michigan.

II

Defendant first argues that, given his conviction and sentence in Canada, his subsequent prosecution in Oakland County violated the Treaty of Extradition between the United States of America and Canada, 27 UST 983; TIAS 8237, as well as the double jeopardy prohibition of Const. 1963, art. 1, § 15. We first address defendant's contention that his subsequent prosecution in Michigan violated the extradition treaty. An interpretation of language contained in a treaty involves a question of law. Piamba Cortes v. American Airlines, Inc., 177 F.3d 1272, 1280 (C.A.11, 1999); Cook v. United States, 86 F.3d 1095, 1097 (Fed.Cir., 1996); Wickman v. Vinco Corp., 288 F.2d 310, 312 (C.A.6, 1961). We review questions of law de novo. People v. Melotik, 221 Mich.App. 190,198, 561 N.W.2d 453 (1997).

The fourth article of the treaty, in relevant part, provides:

(1) Extradition shall not be granted in any of the following circumstances:

(i) When the person whose surrender is sought is being proceeded against, or has been tried and discharged or punished in the territory of the requested state for the offense for which his extradition is requested.

Defendant contends that the Oakland County prosecutor violated this provision when he sought defendant's extradition from Canada for trial on the CSC I and kidnapping charges.

Under U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2, a treaty entered into under the authority of the United States is the "the supreme Law of the Land" to which "the Judges in every State shall be bound...." As the United States Supreme Court has noted, the "treaties of the United States are as much a part of the law of every State as its own local laws and Constitution." Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U.S.(10 Otto)483, 490, 25 L.Ed. 628 (1879). Therefore, the courts of this state must take judicial notice of any treaties of the United States and enforce the rights granted therein in an appropriate proceeding. United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 419, 7 S.Ct. 234, 30 L.Ed. 425 (1886).

However, a Michigan court was not the proper forum for defendant to vindicate any rights granted to him in the treaty. Article 4 provides that extradition "shall not be granted "where, as here, the requesting state seeks the surrender of a person who was previously tried and punished in the requested state "for the offense for which his extradition is requested." 27 UST 983, art 4(1)(i) (emphasis added). This language implies that a defendant should seek to preserve the defendant's rights under Article 4 in an appropriate tribunal of the requested country (the country that would do the (granting), rather than...