Background
Defendant and the victim reconnected over Facebook and traveled together to a rented cottage in Traverse City from September 18–20, 2022. On the evening of September 19, after the victim attempted to go to bed, defendant became aggressive. What followed was a multi-hour assault: defendant struck the victim repeatedly in the head and face, dragged her by her hair, confined her to a locked room, and subjected her to ongoing verbal abuse. Defendant made death threats, telling the victim he would “like nothing more than to see [her] dead” and that she was “not getting out this house.” He demeaned her with degrading language and demanded she bark like a dog. The victim eventually managed to escape and called police.
The victim sustained significant injuries including two black eyes, facial bruising, marks on her neck, and injuries to her dentures. Responding Deputy George Preston documented the injuries through photographs and testified that the victim was visibly weeping and injured. The ex-boyfriend confirmed defendant’s violent demeanor during a phone call defendant intercepted. At trial, defendant offered a competing narrative—that the victim’s injuries resulted from a drunken fall and a shoe he threw—but was impeached by his prior 2007 domestic violence conviction.
The jury convicted defendant of torture under MCL 750.85. The trial court sentenced him to 7–20 years’ imprisonment and scored Offense Variable (OV) 7 at 50 points based on sadism and torture. Defendant appealed, raising claims of Brady violation, ineffective assistance of counsel on multiple grounds, and erroneous OV 7 scoring.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence on all grounds. First, the court rejected defendant’s Brady claim. Although assuming the prosecution suppressed a statement from the cottage owner about a post-assault encounter, the court found the evidence was not material under Brady because the prosecution presented overwhelming evidence of the assault itself—including victim testimony, photographic evidence of injuries, corroborating witness testimony, and defendant’s prior domestic violence conviction. The alleged suppressed statement about post-assault events could not reasonably have changed the trial outcome.
Second, the court found no ineffective assistance of counsel. Counsel’s failure to more thoroughly interview the cottage owners and present their observations (such as lack of noise from the cottage or absence of knives) did not constitute deficient performance that would have changed the outcome, given the extensive prosecution evidence. Counsel’s cross-examination strategy—focusing on the victim’s intoxication to support defendant’s drunken-fall narrative—was objectively reasonable trial strategy. Preston’s description of injuries as an “assault” was not impermissible vouching but rather the officer’s perception of depicted injuries. Finally, defendant failed to establish the factual predicate for an expert-testimony claim by offering no proof of what an expert would testify regarding hallucinogenic mushrooms.
Third, the court affirmed OV 7 scoring at 50 points for sadism and torture. Defendant’s conduct—including death threats, demeaning abuse, physical brutality, confinement, and false statements designed to heighten fear—constituted “sadism” under the sentencing guidelines, which is defined as conduct inflicting extreme or prolonged pain or humiliation for the offender’s gratification. Even if the conduct fell short of sadism, it was “similarly egregious” and went beyond the minimum elements required for torture conviction.
Key Takeaways
- Brady materiality requires showing a reasonable probability that suppressed evidence would have changed the trial outcome; evidence becomes immaterial when the trial record contains overwhelming corroborating evidence.
- Trial counsel’s cross-examination strategy need not succeed to be constitutionally adequate; counsel’s performance is deficient only if objectively unreasonable under prevailing professional norms.
- Under OV 7 sentencing guidelines, conduct going beyond the bare minimum elements of the offense—including death threats, dehumanizing language, physical brutality beyond what the crime requires, and confinement—may constitute sadism or similarly egregious conduct warranting the 50-point enhancement.
- Expert testimony on the effects of hallucinogenic mushrooms is not required where the jury received adequate evidence about alcohol’s effects on perception and memory, which constitute common knowledge.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies Michigan’s approach to torture convictions and sentencing enhancements for sadism. The court emphasized that OV 7 applies not only when conduct explicitly meets the statutory sadism definition, but also when it is “similarly egregious”—a more flexible standard that captures conduct designed to psychologically devastate victims through threats and dehumanization alongside physical violence. The decision instructs that courts need not treat torture as merely the physical infliction of pain; conduct that goes beyond minimum offense elements to gratify the offender or substantially heighten the victim’s fear and anxiety qualifies for enhanced sentencing.
The ruling also reaffirms strict standards for both Brady claims and ineffective-assistance claims in violent-crime cases. By requiring defendants to show materiality through a lens focused on the totality of properly-admitted evidence, and by deferring to trial counsel’s strategic choices absent objective unreasonableness, the court signals that appellate review in these cases will be skeptical of post-hoc challenges to trial tactics—particularly when the trial evidence was substantial.