Background
Defendant, the victim’s stepfather, was convicted of eight counts of criminal sexual conduct involving his stepdaughter between ages 4 and 14. The victim testified that defendant repeatedly entered her bedroom at night and sexually assaulted her on a weekly basis, including digital penetration and forcing her to touch his penis. After the victim disclosed the abuse to her mother in late August 2021, the mother initially did not take immediate action but eventually left the family home with the children in November 2021 and filed for divorce.
At trial, defendant testified he had a penile piercing and argued the victim’s failure to mention this distinctive feature undermined her credibility. The victim testified she identified defendant by the television’s glow or by opening her eyes minimally and was uncertain how to describe his genitalia when questioned. The jury convicted defendant of two counts of first-degree CSC under MCL 750.520b(1)(a), one count under MCL 750.520b(1)(b), one count under MCL 750.520b(1)(a), and four counts of second-degree CSC. The trial court initially sentenced him in November 2023 and resentenced him in May 2025 after granting his motion for resentencing.
Defendant appealed on multiple grounds: claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel, challenging the scoring of Offense Variable 11 at 25 points for three CSC-II counts, and arguing the consecutive sentences were improper.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed all convictions but found reversible error in sentencing. On the ineffective assistance claims, the court rejected all three arguments. Regarding the medical report, the court held that trial counsel’s failure to object was not ineffective because the physician’s statements were admissible under the hearsay exception for medical treatment statements (MRE 803(4)). The victim’s disclosure to the physician about the manner and identity of the assailant was reasonably necessary for medical diagnosis and treatment—particularly given the short timeframe between her removal from the home and the medical visit. Additionally, the physician’s report did not improperly vouch for the victim’s veracity but only referenced “suspected” abuse without rendering an opinion on truthfulness.
On the piercing argument, the court found no ineffective assistance for failing to introduce corroborating evidence of the piercing. The victim was never asked whether defendant’s penis had specific identifying characteristics, and the affidavits proffered on appeal only established the piercing’s visibility, not how it would feel to the touch. Since the victim testified she only saw defendant by television light or by barely opening her eyes, evidence of a visible piercing could not impeach her tactile testimony about not noticing the piercing.
On sentencing, the court vacated and remanded. The trial court erred in assessing Offense Variable 11 at 25 points for counts five, six, and seven. The court found that the alleged prior penetrations (counts one, two, and three) did not “arise out of” the charged offenses of counts five, six, and seven because the victim testified these incidents occurred at different times under different circumstances. The court also held the consecutive sentences were improper. MCL 750.520b(3) permits consecutive sentences only for crimes arising from the same transaction. Multiple sexual penetrations must be part of a continuous time sequence, not merely a continuous course of conduct. Here, counts one and five, two and six, and three and seven were not part of the same transaction because the victim testified to different circumstances—such as whether her sister was home—for each incident.
Key Takeaways
- Medical reports summarizing a sexual assault victim’s statements to a physician are admissible under the medical treatment hearsay exception when made shortly after the assault, even if the victim cannot undergo a physical examination.
- Trial counsel is not ineffective for failing to cross-examine a minor victim about alleged motives to fabricate when the cross-examination would create an appearance of witness bullying and counsel pursued alternative motive theories (here, custody dispute).
- Sentencing courts must carefully apply the “arising out of” language in MCL 777.41 for Offense Variable 11; multiple criminal sexual penetrations must be part of a continuous time sequence occurring during the same transaction to support consecutive scoring.
- Consecutive sentences for multiple sexual conduct offenses are improper without evidence that the offenses occurred as part of the same transaction, not merely as part of an ongoing course of abusive conduct.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies important boundaries in sexual assault prosecutions. First, it reinforces that medical professionals’ reports of assault disclosures are properly admissible even when a victim cannot be physically examined, provided the disclosure occurs within a reasonable time after the assault. Second, the ruling protects trial strategies that avoid appearing to bully young victims while still allowing defense counsel to present alternative theories of fabrication through other witnesses.
Most significantly, the sentencing analysis provides crucial guidance on applying Michigan’s sentencing guidelines to serial sexual abuse cases. By requiring that multiple penetrations form a continuous time sequence—not merely an ongoing pattern—to justify consecutive sentencing, the court ensures that trial courts cannot aggregate separate incidents of abuse that occurred at different times and under materially different circumstances. The remand for resentencing will substantially reduce defendant’s sentence from the original guidelines level.