People v. Street

1

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLARENCE STREET, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 363410

Court of Appeals of Michigan

November 30, 2023

UNPUBLISHED

Ingham Circuit Court LC No. 19-000567-FC

Before: HOOD, P.J., and JANSEN and FEENEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The prosecution appeals by right the trial court's order granting defendant's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal following a jury verdict of guilty of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I), MCL 750.520b (multiple variables^[1]), provisionally granting defendant a new trial, and conditionally ordering an evidentiary hearing to further address possible juror misconduct. We reverse the trial court's order and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case arises from the 2018 sexual assault of the victim defendant's former girlfriend. Defendant and the victim testified that they began dating in 2014 but that they broke up near the end of 2015. Despite their breakup, the victim and defendant continued to visit one another on occasion between 2015 and 2018. They maintained a sexual relationship after their breakup, and they ordinarily engaged in vaginal and oral sex when they met.

The victim testified that, in March 2018, she and defendant agreed to spend the night together in a hotel room that she had booked. After checking into the hotel room at approximately 9:00 or 10:00 p.m., defendant made himself and the victim drinks while the victim showered. The victim took a sip of her drink that defendant had made for her after she had gotten out of the shower, but it "didn't taste right," so she set it down and refused to drink it. The victim and defendant subsequently went to the balcony and smoked marijuana for approximately 30 minutes. After they returned to the room, the victim kissed defendant while he sat on the edge of the bed. They watched a movie and kissed again on the bed, but the victim became very tired, so she rolled to her side so that she could go to sleep. When the victim did so, defendant lay behind her and began to rub his penis on her vagina. Both the victim and defendant were fully clothed. The victim told defendant "no," to which defendant responded that he "just wanted to feel it." The victim again told defendant "no" and that she "didn't want to" have sex, and defendant stopped what he was doing. The victim stated that she fell asleep shortly thereafter, and the last thing that she remembered prior to falling asleep was telling defendant that she did not want to have sex.

The victim testified that she woke up a few hours later to find that defendant had inserted his penis into her anus. The victim's shorts and underwear had been removed, and her tank top had been pulled up. The victim felt pain in her anus and became scared by what defendant had done, so she ran to the bathroom, shut the door, and began crying as she sat against the door. The victim could hear defendant stating through the door that he was "sorry" and that he had "put it in the wrong hole." The victim demanded that they leave the hotel, to which defendant agreed. They put their clothing on and packed their belongings, and defendant drove the victim back to her car that was parked at his mother's house so that she could drive herself home. The victim sought medical treatment the following day because she was experiencing abdominal, pelvic, and rectum pain following the assault. The victim participated in a sexual assault examination during which several samples were collected from her body. An expert in forensic DNA analysis testified that although the perianal and breast swabs did not reveal the presence of DNA, the vaginal and vulvar swabs both indicated the possible presence of male DNA. Further analysis of the vaginal swab indicated that defendant's DNA had been present in the victim's vagina.

Defendant testified on his own behalf, and his testimony largely addressed the issues of consent and mistake. Defendant stated that he performed oral sex on the victim for approximately 25 minutes and that when the victim refused to perform oral sex on him when he told her to, he lay on top of her and inserted his penis into her vagina. Defendant stated that he removed his penis from the victim's vagina approximately a minute and a half later and put his shorts back on because he believed that she was upset that he had stopped performing oral sex on her. Defendant watched television for a few hours while the victim lay next to him on the bed. During that time, the victim had moved closer to defendant so that her buttocks were pressed against him. Defendant stated that during their relationship, the victim had indicated on various occasions that she wanted to have sex with him by pressing her buttocks against his penis while they were in bed, so defendant interpreted the victim's actions as a sign that she wanted to engage in sex with him. Defendant subsequently removed his shorts, lifted the victim's leg, and attempted to engage in vaginal sex with her. However, defendant stated that he could not see the victim's vagina, so he mistakenly penetrated her anus instead. Defendant testified that nothing led him to believe that the victim was unconscious, asleep, or an unwilling participant at any point that night. But, defendant did admit that he never checked to see if the victim was sleeping. Moreover, defendant admitted that he sent text messages to the victim the following day and admitted that he knew that the victim was sleeping. Specifically, when the victim messaged defendant that she could not "remember anything but waking up in pain," defendant stated, "I gave you some head and started to have sex with you, but you wouldn't wake up so I stopped and had a [cigarette] and you moved around like you were awake, so I tried again and that's when you woke up I guess." Defendant also later messaged the victim, "Oh, I tried so hard to wake you up."

After the prosecution rested its case, defendant moved for a directed verdict of acquittal based on the evidence presented. The trial court denied defendant's motion because it found that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty as charged. The trial court stated that the case hinged on the credibility of the witnesses and that it was the jury's role to decide the facts of the case and make credibility determinations. The jury found defendant guilty of one count of CSC-I for anally penetrating the victim, but it acquitted him of CSC-I for vaginally penetrating the victim. On defendant's request, the trial court polled the jury, and each juror indicated that the announced verdicts reflected his or her individual decision as well as the collective decision of all of the jurors.

After the jury rendered its verdicts, defendant filed a renewed motion for a directed verdict or, alternatively, a new trial, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient for a rational jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of CSC-I for anally penetrating the victim and that the jury rendered inconsistent verdicts because it misunderstood and misapplied the law. The prosecution filed a response, arguing that the evidence presented was sufficient. The prosecution also argued that the jury appropriately considered each count individually as it was instructed to do, and the fact that the jury found defendant guilty of one count and not guilty of the other count does not indicate that the jury rendered inconsistent verdicts because it misunderstood and misapplied the law. A motion hearing was held, and the parties largely relied on their written submissions. After hearing oral arguments, the trial court indicated that it intended to issue a written order regarding defendant's motion so that it could review the transcripts and relevant caselaw prior to issuing a decision. At the end of the motion hearing, however, the trial court also expressed concern regarding possible juror misconduct. The trial court stated:

One of the things that is not on this record, but . . . there was an attorney who was on the panel, and one of the jurors said, well, the attorney really led us to where- to our decision, something along those lines. And I don't know what that discussion was . . ., but I had this impression that they all relied on the attorney because he was an attorney. That's unfair, and that has troubled me since we heard that.

I don't know if the jury made an independent decision, even though we polled the jury, because of what we were told in the back, that he really led the group, that they relied on him for information, and I don't know how much explanation he gave them that was outside the evidence that was actually presented by both sides in this case. That to me is as troubling as both of your arguments. So I wanted to just make a record of that.

The trial court thereafter issued a written order in which it granted defendant's motion for a directed verdict provisionally granted defendant a new trial if its decision regarding the directed verdict were reversed, and conditionally granted an evidentiary hearing on remand to further address the possible juror misconduct if both its decision regarding the directed verdict and its decision regarding the new trial were reversed. With regard to the directed verdict, the court did not specifically address defendant's arguments that the jury rendered inconsistent verdicts because it misunderstood and misapplied the law. The court found that no rational jury could find that the essential elements of CSC-I were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that there was no dispute regarding the first two elements because defendant had...