Background
Christopher Michael Larson was convicted after a one-day jury trial of two counts of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct based on allegations that he touched HA’s breasts and buttocks by concealment or surprise. HA and her friend AG testified that Larson followed them at a gas station and nearby hotel parking lot, made sexual comments, and groped HA. Gas-station surveillance footage showed Larson hugging and standing close to HA, although it did not clearly depict the alleged touching.
The jury also heard testimony from the gas-station cashier about sexually suggestive remarks Larson made shortly before HA arrived. While the surveillance footage played, a responding sheriff’s deputy narrated it and stated that Larson could be seen grabbing HA’s buttock. The jury found Larson guilty, and the trial court sentenced him as a fourth habitual offender to concurrent terms of 46 months to 15 years, with the minimum at the top of the guidelines range.
On appeal, Larson argued that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the cashier’s testimony and the deputy’s narration. He also contended 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 occurred minutes before the charged conduct and were relevant to whether his alleged touching of HA was intentional and sexual. The testimony provided context for the charged offenses, did not implicate the other-acts restrictions of MRE 404(b), and was not unfairly prejudicial under MRE 403. Because an objection would have lacked merit, counsel was not ineffective for failing to make one.
The court agreed that the deputy improperly went beyond permissible lay opinion when he stated with certainty that the video showed Larson grabbing HA’s buttock, even though the footage did not clearly show whether or where Larson 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 surrounding portions of their accounts. He therefore failed to satisfy both requirements for an ineffective-assistance claim.
The court also upheld the sentences as proportionate. The 46-month minimum fell within the recommended range of 5 to 46 months and was therefore presumptively proportionate. Larson did not overcome that presumption given his extensive criminal history, repeated reoffending shortly after release from jail, prior domestic-violence and assault convictions, exploitation of HA’s trust, and the trial court’s stated goals of punishment, deterrence, public protection, and rehabilitation.
Key Takeaways
- Sexually suggestive statements made minutes before an alleged sexual touching may be admissible as contextual evidence of intent or sexual purpose rather than as other-acts evidence.
- A witness may not conclusively narrate ambiguous surveillance footage when the witness is in no better position than the jury to interpret what it shows.
- Even deficient performance by defense counsel does not warrant reversal without a reasonable probability that the error affected the verdict.
- A defendant must overcome the presumption that a sentence within the guidelines range is proportionate.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes permissible testimony providing immediate context for charged conduct from improper narration that tells jurors how to interpret ambiguous video evidence. It confirms that a law-enforcement witness may exceed the bounds of lay opinion by asserting that unclear footage conclusively depicts a disputed act.
The opinion also illustrates the importance of Strickland’s prejudice requirement: an unmade objection may constitute deficient performance without requiring reversal when independent testimony and corroborating evidence strongly support the verdict. It further reinforces the substantial burden defendants face when challenging a within-guidelines sentence as disproportionate.