People v. Phillips

• Decision Date: 08 August 2002
• Docket Number: Docket No. 228315.
• Citation: 649 N.W.2d 407,251 Mich. App. 100
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith Richard PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

649 N.W.2d 407

251 Mich. App. 100

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith Richard PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 228315.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted March 5, 2002, at Lansing.

Decided April 30, 2002, at 9:05 a.m.

Released for Publication August 8, 2002.

Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, John A. Hallacy, Prosecuting Attorney, and Jennifer Kay Clark, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

James Bonfiglio, Okemos, for the defendant on appeal.

Before: SAWYER, P.J., and MURPHY and HOEKSTRA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals as of right from his jury-trial convictions of first- and second-degree criminal sexual conduct, M.C.L. § 750.520b(1)(b)(i), 750.520c(1)(b)(i). The trial court sentenced him to eight to thirty years' imprisonment for the first-degree conviction and 3-1/2 to 15 years' imprisonment for the second-degree conviction. We affirm.

This case arises from an incident one afternoon where a police officer happened upon an automobile parked at the end of a two-track road near a river and found defendant and a fourteen-year-old girl in the back seat in a compromising position. According to the officer, both defendant and the victim had their pants and underwear off. After speaking with defendant and the victim, the officer arrested defendant.

Defendant first argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because the evidence presented was insufficient to support a conviction under M.C.L. § 750.520b(1)(b)(i). Specifically, defendant claims that the evidence was insufficient to show that he and the victim were members of the same household.

When determining whether sufficient evidence has been presented to sustain a conviction, this Court must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found that the essential elements of the crime were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Wolfe, 440 Mich. 508, 515, 489 N.W.2d 748 (1992), amended 441 Mich. 1201, 489 N.W.2d 748 (1992); People v. Godbold, 230 Mich.App. 508, 522, 585 N.W.2d 13 (1998). In order to prove a defendant is guilty of first-degree criminal sexual conduct pursuant to the theory that the defendant and the victim were members of the same household, the prosecution must prove that the defendant

engage[d] in sexual penetration with another person and [that] any of the following circumstances exists:

* * *

(b) That other person is at least 13 but less than 16 years of age and any of the following:

(i) The actor is a member of the same household as the victim. [MCL 750.520b(1)(b)(i).]

In the present case, both parties rely on People v. Garrison, 128 Mich.App. 640, 341 N.W.2d 170 (1983), to support their positions. The Garrison case involved allegations of sexual abuse by a thirteen-year-old victim. Id. at 642, 341 N.W.2d 170. This Court described the circumstances surrounding the crime as follows:

During the school year, the 13-year-old complainant resided with her father and stepmother. On the day school recessed for summer vacation, she went to live with her mother and the defendant in their home pursuant to court-ordered extended visitation over the summer months. The defendant was charged with having had sexual relations with his stepdaughter while the child was living in the home with her mother and the defendant pursuant to said court-ordered visitation. [Id.]

Concluding that under these facts the victim could be considered a member of the defendant's "household," this Court stated:

We believe the term "household" has a fixed meaning in our society not readily susceptible of different interpretation. The length of residency or the permanency of residence has little to do with the meaning of the word as it is used in the statute. Rather, the term denotes more of what the Legislature intended as an all-inclusive word for a family unit residing under one roof for any time other than a brief or chance visit. The "same household" provision of the statute assumes a close and ongoing subordinating relationship that a child experiences with a member of his or her family or with a coercive authority figure. [Id. at 646-647, 341 N.W.2d 170.]

Defendant now argues that the facts in the present case do not demonstrate "a close and ongoing subordinating relationship that a child experiences with a member of his or her family or with a coercive authority figure." Id. The prosecution argues that Garrison supports the trial court's decision in the present case because here, as in Garrison, there was evidence that although the victim and defendant were not related, they were members of the same household.

We begin by noting that the present case does not involve a "brief or chance visit" by the victim to defendant's home. Rather, the arresting officer testified that defendant told him that he and his wife were in the process of adopting the victim and that she had been living in their home for 4 or 4-1/2 months. Similarly, while the victim alternately described her situation as living or staying with defendant and his wife, she testified that she spent the night there and that defendant wanted to adopt her. Thus, we are convinced that what took place was more than a visit to defendant's home.

Defendant nevertheless asserts that there was no evidence of either a "subordinating relationship" or that defendant was a "coercive authority figure" as, defendant claims, is required by this Court's holding in Garrison. However, a close examination of the statement in Garrison dispels any notion that this Court meant to impose such a requirement. As defendant points out, the Garrison Court explained that "[t]he `same household' provision of the statute assumes a close and ongoing subordinating relationship that a child experiences with a member of his or her family or with a coercive authority figure." Garrison, supra at 646-647, 341 N.W.2d 170 (emphasis supplied). According to Random House Webster's College Dictionary (2d ed., 1997), "assume" means "to take for granted or without proof."¹ Applying this meaning to the quote from Garrison, we conclude that this Court meant to indicate that proof of a "coercive authority figure" was not necessary precisely because the "household" requirement assumes such a link between the victim and the defendant by virtue of "the fact that people in the same household, those living together, bear a special relationship to one another." Garrison, supra at 645, 341 N.W.2d 170. Moreover, the first-degree criminal sexual conduct statute does not, by its plain language, require such proof. MCL 750.520b(1)(b)(i). Indeed, proof of coercion by an authority figure is an entirely separate manner by which to prove that a defendant committed first-degree criminal sexual conduct. MCL 750.520b(1)(b)(iii). Therefore, accepting defendant's argument would add an entirely new element to the statute while simultaneously compressing two distinct theories of first-degree criminal sexual conduct into one crime. Hence, we find defendant's argument to be without merit. Further, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution, sufficient evidence was presented for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant and the victim were members of the same household, and thus the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a directed verdict.²

For the same reasons as noted above, we disagree with defendant's contention that the trial court improperly instructed the jury because the instructions did not indicate that the jurors had to find "the existence of a subordinating relationship with a coercive authority figure" in order to convict him of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. Instructing the jury that such proof was necessary would, in effect, add an element to the crime. Because the trial court's instructions to the jury "fairly presented the issues and sufficiently protected defendant's rights," People v. McCrady, 244 Mich.App. 27, 30, 624 N.W.2d 761 (2000); People v. Brown, 239 Mich.App. 735, 746, 610 N.W.2d 234 (2000), defendant is entitled to no relief on this basis.

Next, defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying defendant's motion for a new trial. The basis for this claim of error is that defendant was denied his statutory right to a polygraph examination pursuant to M.C.L. § 776.21(5).³ Before trial, defendant demanded a polygraph test and the court entered a stipulated order requiring that a test be administered. Two tests were scheduled before trial; evidently defendant canceled the first test, and the polygraph operator refused to administer the second scheduled test, apparently because defendant did not provide a medical release.⁴ At the end of the trial, after the jury retired to deliberate, defendant objected for the first time that the polygraph test had not been given and demanded that defendant be given the test regardless of the outcome of the trial. Before sentencing, defendant filed a motion for a directed verdict or a new trial. In the motion, defendant maintained that the verdict was against the great weight of the evidence and was unjust and that defendant was denied a substantial right and due process of law because he did not have a polygraph test. At a hearing after sentencing, the trial court denied defendant's motion,⁵ and an order to that effect was entered.

On appeal, defendant claims that because he did not have the requested statutorily provided polygraph test, he is entitled to such an examination followed by a new trial. Although no Michigan case has addressed this precise issue, we find this Court's decision in People v. Sterling, 154 Mich.App. 223, 397 N.W.2d 182 (1986), instructive. In Sterling, this Court held that a defendant does not have a right to a polygraph test pursuant to M.C.L. § 776.21(5) after a conviction, but before sentencing,...