Background
Adam Richard Williams was convicted by a jury of first-degree home invasion, four counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, and domestic violence arising from an incident involving his former dating partner. The victim testified that, while the couple was ending their four-year relationship, Williams entered her condominium without permission, threatened and assaulted her, and forced her to engage in multiple sexual acts. Williams maintained that the sexual activity was consensual.
The trial court permitted the victim to testify about earlier incidents in which Williams allegedly became physically violent or forced sexual activity during relationship disputes. Williams received concurrent sentences of 8 to 20 years for home invasion, 26 to 50 years for each criminal-sexual-conduct conviction, and 93 days for domestic violence. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of the home-invasion evidence, admission of the prior acts, scoring of several offense variables, information presented at sentencing, and the proportionality of his above-guidelines sentences.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. Viewed in the prosecution’s favor, the evidence permitted the jury to find that Williams entered the condominium without permission: the victim had placed his belongings outside, asked him to return any key, blocked him on her phone, and testified that she had not invited him inside. Williams himself acknowledged that he was not invited that day. The court also upheld admission of the prior domestic-violence and sexual-assault evidence under MCL 768.27b and MRE 403 because the incidents were relevant to propensity, a common pattern, and the victim’s credibility, and their probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
The court upheld the 50-point score for Offense Variable 7 because Williams’s alleged use of a baseball bat—including holding it near the victim’s face and describing marks on it as connected to people who had crossed him—was sufficiently egregious conduct designed to substantially increase her fear and anxiety. No relief was available concerning OV 8 because the trial court had already granted Williams’s objection and scored that variable at zero.
The court held, however, that OV 12 should have been scored at five points rather than 10. The alleged felonious assault with the bat was not a distinct contemporaneous act because the prosecution had relied on that same conduct to support the criminal-sexual-conduct charges. Williams’s restraint of the victim after the sexual assaults could independently support five points for unlawful imprisonment. Because the correction did not warrant resentencing, the court affirmed the sentences and remanded only for the ministerial correction of the Sentencing Information Report.
Key Takeaways
- Evidence that a former partner placed a defendant’s belongings outside, requested the return of a key, and did not invite him inside can support a finding that entry was without permission, even if the defendant previously had access to the residence.
- MCL 768.27b permits relevant evidence of prior domestic violence or sexual assault, including propensity evidence, subject to MRE 403; the prior conduct need not precisely mirror the charged offense.
- For OV 12, conduct used to establish the sentencing offense cannot also be treated as a distinct contemporaneous felonious act, although separate post-offense restraint may support scoring for unlawful imprisonment.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates Michigan courts’ broad treatment of prior domestic-violence evidence under MCL 768.27b and the fact-specific distinction between conduct forming part of a sentencing offense and a separate contemporaneous act under OV 12. It also confirms that a scoring error requires correction of the sentencing record but not resentencing when the corrected score does not otherwise undermine the sentence, while upholding an upward departure based on repeated violations of court orders, efforts to influence the victim, public-safety concerns, and the circumstances of the offenses.