Tom compton arrest8/15/2023 * * * Defense Counsel: And today is the first time that you were telling anybody that touched you on your chest 13 days before August third, correct? MC: Yes. This was August third1 when you were touched on your chest? MC: No. However, defense counsel continued questioning MC as follows: Defense Counsel. Defense counsel’s questioning and challenge to the prosecutor’s objection was likely premised on his mistaken but reasonable belief that MC was alleging that defendant touched her chest during the incident underlying the present charge rather than during a previous incident. Defense counsel argued that the question did not concern a prior act, and the trial court overruled the prosecutor’s objection. The prosecutor objected, stating that defense counsel was referring to a prior act that had not been noticed under MRE 404(b). On cross-examination, defense counsel questioned MC what she was wearing the last time defendant allegedly touched her chest. On direct examination, the prosecution asked MC whether defendant touched her anywhere else during the incident, and she responded that defendant touched her chest. As an initial matter, we must determine whether defendant preserved this evidentiary issue for review by objecting at trial on the same ground now advanced on appeal. We find defendant’s contention lacking in merit. OTHER-ACTS EVIDENCE On appeal, defendant first contends that the trial court abused its discretion by considering evidence of prior acts of sexual touching when the prosecution failed to file a notice of intent to present such evidence in violation of MRE 404(b). When Reid returned to the house, he looked through the glass door and observed defendant “hanging over top of while she was spread eagle on the couch.” Reid explained that MC was lying on the couch with her legs splayed, while defendant was “shoving his fingers down between her legs.” Reid and MC immediately left the house, and Reid called the police. Reid recalled that he went for a walk for 15 minutes to “cool down” after arguing with MC. Reid also testified during the bench trial and stated that, at the time of the incident, he was living with defendant, his uncle. MC testified that, while she was on the couch, defendant reached beneath her shorts and underwear and touched her vagina, stopping only when her father returned to the house. MC stated that she was picked up and carried from a bedroom into the living room of defendant’s house, where she was laid on the couch. During the bench trial, MC testified that she and her father, Everett Reid, were visiting defendant’s house on the date of the incident. FACTS Defendant’s conviction arises from his alleged sexual touching, on August 2, 2017, of his then nine-year-old grandniece, MC. Defendant appeals as of right his bench trial conviction of second-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520c(2)(b), and his corresponding sentence of 19 months to 15 years’ imprisonment. Before: MARKEY, P.J., and FORT HOOD and GADOLA, JJ. 17-007412-01-FC THOMAS COMPTON, Defendant-Appellant. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED ApPlaintiff-Appellee, v No. If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |