Background
On January 7, 2021, defendant Cory Dariell McGill picked up his former romantic partner from work and drove her to her apartment. Once inside, McGill became aggressive and attempted to remove the victim’s clothes. When she resisted, McGill drew a firearm, threatened her, and struck her repeatedly with the gun. He then sexually assaulted her twice—once on the floor and once in the bedroom. During a struggle over the firearm in the bathroom, two rounds discharged into the wall but did not strike the victim. The victim eventually escaped and fled to a neighbor’s apartment, where the neighbor called 911. McGill was arrested days later following a standoff with law enforcement.
At trial, McGill claimed self-defense. A jury convicted him of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct with weapon use, assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder, domestic violence (third offense), felon in possession of a firearm, and possession of a firearm during commission of a felony. The trial court sentenced McGill as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 35–80 years for each sexual assault count, 5–10 years for assault, 3–5 years for domestic violence, 3–5 years for felon in possession, and 2 years for felony-firearm, with sentences concurrent to each other but consecutive to the felony-firearm sentence.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed McGill’s convictions and sentences. On the threshold issue, the court held that the prosecutor’s habitual offender enhancement notice was timely. Because McGill waived arraignment, the statute required the notice to be filed within 21 days of the information being filed. Since the prosecutor filed both the information and enhancement notice on February 26, 2021—twenty-two days after the preliminary examination but on the same date as the information—the notice was timely and complied with MCL 769.13(1).
Regarding sentencing, the court rejected McGill’s proportionality challenge. Because the habitual offender enhancement was valid, McGill received a within-guidelines sentence, which is presumed proportionate under established precedent. McGill bore the burden of demonstrating unusual circumstances to overcome that presumption, which he failed to do. The court also addressed McGill’s claims that the trial court erred during voir dire by mentioning his “domestic violence third offense” charge. Although the court acknowledged this constituted error, it found any prejudice was cured by the trial court’s final jury instructions, which referred only to “domestic violence.” The court emphasized that jurors are presumed to follow jury instructions. Finally, the court rejected McGill’s double jeopardy claim regarding simultaneous convictions for domestic violence and assault with intent to do great bodily harm. Under the “abstract legal elements test,” these are distinct offenses because domestic violence requires proof of a domestic relationship, which assault does not. MCL 750.84(3) also expressly permits convictions for multiple offenses arising from the same conduct.
Key Takeaways
- Habitual offender enhancement notices filed with the information itself satisfy the statutory filing deadline when the defendant waives arraignment, even if filed after 21 days from the preliminary examination date.
- Within-guidelines sentences receive a presumption of proportionality on appeal; defendants must prove unusual circumstances to overcome that presumption.
- Trial court errors in jury instructions can be harmless when cured by subsequent cautionary instructions, given the presumption that jurors follow their instructions.
- Domestic violence and assault with intent to do great bodily harm are distinct offenses for double jeopardy purposes because each contains elements the other does not, and simultaneous conviction and punishment do not violate the Fifth Amendment.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces important procedural protections in violent felony cases while maintaining prosecutorial efficiency in filing habitual offender enhancements. The court’s analysis of the habitual offender timing issue clarifies that prosecutors need not file the enhancement within 21 days of the preliminary examination if the defendant waives arraignment; instead, the relevant date is when the information itself is filed. This provides prosecutors reasonable flexibility while still affording defendants adequate notice of enhancement allegations.
The opinion also clarifies that Michigan courts may convict and punish defendants for both domestic violence and associated assault charges without violating double jeopardy protections. Because domestic violence requires proof of an intimate relationship that assault alone does not, the charges satisfy the “abstract legal elements test” and may be prosecuted concurrently. This holding preserves prosecutors’ ability to charge domestic violence offenses independently from assault-related charges in cases involving intimate partners, an important tool in protecting domestic violence victims.