Registration as a tier I sex offender under the “catchall provision” (MCL 28.722(s)(vi)) of the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA); MCL 28.723(1)(a); People v Golba; “Listed offense”; MCL 28.722(k)

The court held that the trial court did not err by requiring defendant to register as a tier I sex offender. She pled nolo contendere to an amended charge of second-degree murder in the death of her two-year-old son. The trial court entered a judgment of sentence imposing a prison sentence of 180 to 600 months and requiring her to register as a tier I sex offender under the catchall provision of the SORA. Defendant appealed her sentence contesting the registration requirement, and the court remanded “for the trial court to follow the proper procedures to determine whether [she] must register as a sex offender.” On remand, the trial court again found she was subject to registration, noting that while testimony from the preliminary exam indicated there could have been other explanations for the lacerations on the skin of the anus and the internal hemorrhage, a medical examiner “believed ‘it was a blunt object or blunt force[,] most likely a foreign object.’ The trial court further noted that ‘a foreign object suggests sexual activity in the rectum or in the anus.’” As such, it “concluded that ‘while the name of the charge by its nature does not constitute a sexual offense, the activity underlying the charge does.’” On appeal, the court rejected defendant’s argument that the trial court erred by ordering her to register as a sex offender under the catchall provision because her criminal activity did not, by its nature, constitute a sexual offense. She claimed that she did not admit to or make any statements regarding sexual assault or sexual activity, that there was no indication of a history of sexual abuse or sexual assault, and that the trial court focused solely on the injuries to the victim’s rectal area but did not look at the rest of the facts giving rise to the conviction. The court concluded that the witness testimony from the preliminary exam “established by a preponderance of the evidence that the violation, by its nature, constituted a sexual offense. The lack of an admission by defendant that she committed a sexual offense and the existence of other injuries to the victim’s body do not alter the weight of the evidence that demonstrates a sexual offense occurred.” Affirmed.