Exclusion of evidence as “sexual conduct” under the rape-shield statute (MCL 750.520j); People v Masi; People v Amenitsch (Unpub); Rights to present a defense & to a fair trial; Right of confrontation; Sufficiency of the evidence for convictions of CSC I & II under MCL 750.520b (multiple variables) & MCL 750.520c(1)(b) (same household); Lack of corroboration; Witness credibility; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Sentencing; Scoring of OV 8; MCL 777.38(1)(a)

The court held that defendant’s rights were not violated by the trial court’s exclusion of certain evidence he wanted to present on the basis that it violated the rape-shield statute. It also held that there was sufficient evidence to support his CSC I and II convictions, and it rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. Finally, it found that the trial court properly scored 15 points for OV 8. Thus, the court affirmed his convictions and his sentences of concurrent terms of 15 to 30 years for the CSC I conviction and 10 to 15 years for the CSC II conviction. Defense counsel asked the victim (GR) at trial if “she was forbidden from possessing a cell phone and laptop because she sent nude photographs to men. GR answered: ‘Yes.’ The prosecutor objected, contending the testimony was inadmissible sexual conduct under the rape-shield statute.” The trial court sustained the objection. The court noted that while the Legislature did not define the term “sexual conduct” for purposes of MCL 750.520j, the Supreme Court interpreted it in Masi. Defendant asserted here that the evidence at issue “showed ‘age inappropriate sexual knowledge that was not learned from [] [d]efendant,’ or that GR had a ‘motive to make false charges.’ But because the evidence related to sexual conduct by GR, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding it under the statute.” The court noted that a “similar factual scenario was presented” in an unpublished opinion, Amenitsch. The trial court there ruled “the evidence ‘was inadmissible under the rape-shield statute, and the’” court held that it properly did so. “The facts in this case are similar to those presented in Amenitsch, and the evidence regarding GR sending nude photographs to unknown adult men was similarly inadmissible.” As to defendant’s sufficiency of the evidence challenges, GR testified about, among other things, an incident at a cabin when she was 14 years old in which she “‘gave him a blow job’” and he “ejaculated ‘on the floor.’ This specific evidence was more than sufficient to allow a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that” he committed CSC I against GR. As to CSC II, she testified about another visit to the cabin when she “was 15 years old, where defendant sucked on one of GR’s breasts and fondled the other in exchange for defendant giving GR the new WiFi password at home.”