Background
A jury convicted Christopher Michael Larson of two counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct based on allegations that he touched HA’s breasts and buttocks at a gas station and later in a hotel parking lot. HA and her friend AG testified that Larson followed HA, whispered sexual comments to her, and repeatedly groped her. Gas-station surveillance footage showed Larson hugging and remaining close to HA, although it did not clearly depict the alleged touching.
Larson was sentenced as a fourth habitual offender to concurrent terms of 46 months to 15 years, with the minimum sentence at the top of the applicable 5-to-46-month guidelines range. On appeal, he argued that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the cashier’s testimony about sexual comments he made before HA entered the store and to a deputy’s narration of the surveillance footage. He also argued that his sentences were unreasonable and disproportionate.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the cashier’s testimony was properly admitted. Larson’s comments minutes before the charged conduct were part of the surrounding context and were relevant to whether his subsequent touching of HA was intentional and sexual. Their probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, so counsel was not ineffective for declining to make a meritless objection.
The court agreed, however, that the deputy exceeded the permissible bounds of lay-opinion testimony by asserting with certainty that the video showed Larson grab HA’s buttocks when the footage did not clearly show whether or where he touched her. Counsel performed deficiently by failing to object, but Larson could not establish prejudice because HA and AG both described the unwanted touching and other evidence corroborated significant portions of their account.
The court also upheld the sentences. Because the minimum terms fell within the guidelines range, they were presumptively proportionate, and Larson did not rebut that presumption. His extensive record of assaultive conduct, repeated offenses soon after release from jail, exploitation of HA’s trust, and failure to respond to prior jail sentences supported the trial court’s decision to impose minimum terms at the top of the range.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant’s sexually suggestive statements immediately preceding an alleged sexual offense may be admissible as contextual evidence of intent or purpose rather than as other-acts evidence.
- A witness may not narrate unclear surveillance footage as though it conclusively depicts a disputed act when the witness is in no better position than the jury to interpret it.
- Deficient performance does not warrant relief without a reasonable probability that the error affected the verdict, and a within-guidelines sentence remains presumptively proportionate.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the distinction between permissible testimony that helps jurors understand video evidence and improper narration that resolves a disputed factual question for them. Even when counsel should have objected, reversal requires a concrete showing that the improper testimony likely affected the outcome.
The opinion also illustrates the difficulty of overturning a within-guidelines Michigan sentence. A defendant’s prior assaultive conduct, rapid reoffending, and failure to respond to earlier jail terms may justify a sentence at the top of the range even when the guidelines already account for the defendant’s criminal history.