Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v JESSE JAMES HAYES, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED April 20, 2006

No. 259299 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 04-196006-FH

Before: Fort Hood, P.J., and Sawyer and Meter, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right from his convictions by a jury of pandering, MCL 750.455, and four counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520d(1)(a). The trial court sentenced him, as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.12, to 46 months to 20 years' imprisonment for his pandering conviction and to four terms of 20 to 50 years' imprisonment for his third-degree criminal sexual conduct convictions. We affirm. Defendant first argues on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the prosecutor to introduce evidence of defendant's prior acts to establish the existence of a scheme or plan of pandering. Defendant maintains that the prior-acts testimony presented by Juanita Edwards concerned matters that took place fourteen years ago and that were unconnected and dissimilar to the present case. This Court reviews a trial court's decision to admit evidence for an abuse of discretion. People v Crear, 242 Mich App 158, 169; 618 NW2d 91 (2000). "A mere difference in judicial opinion does not establish an abuse of discretion." People v Cress, 468 Mich 678, 691; 664 NW2d 174 (2003). If the reasons given by the trial court for its decision are inadequate or not legally recognized, then the trial court has abused its discretion. People v Leonard, 224 Mich App 569, 580; 569 NW2d 663 (1997). MRE 404(b)(1) provides: Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, scheme, plan, or system in doing an act, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident when the same is material, whether such other -1-


crimes, wrongs, or acts are contemporaneous with, or prior or subsequent to the conduct at issue in the case. Three factors must be present for prior-acts evidence to be admissible under MRE 404(b)(1): (1) the evidence must be offered for a proper purpose, (2) it must be relevant, and (3) its probative value must not be substantially outweighed by its potential for unfair prejudice. People v Knox, 469 Mich 502, 509; 674 NW2d 366 (2004). The victim engaged in sexual intercourse with defendant for a three-week period, and during that time she prostituted herself for defendant. Defendant met the victim while she was walking the streets and he offered her a place to stay. Defendant then asked the victim if she wanted to prostitute herself and she answered that she did. Defendant gave the victim some tips on to how to prostitute. Defendant also gave the victim some condoms and showed the victim where to go to find clients. Defendant stayed close to the victim to monitor her when she prostituted. Moreover, the victim gave all her prostitution earnings to defendant. Years earlier, Edwards also prostituted herself at a truck stop and gave her earnings to defendant pursuant to an agreement that she made with him. Edwards was homeless when she met defendant and she agreed to prostitute for defendant in exchange for drugs. Defendant also drove Edwards to the truck stop so she could engage in prostitution. Despite defendant's contentions, there were sufficient similarities between Edwards and the victim's experiences with defendant to establish a pandering scheme or plan. MRE 404(b)(1). Both the victim and Edwards were homeless when they met defendant. Defendant entered into agreements with the victim and Edwards to engage in prostitution. Defendant provided Edwards with drugs in exchange for her prostitution earnings. Defendant provided the victim with housing, food, clothes, and other things during the three-week period that she stayed with and prostituted for him. Defendant took the victim and Edwards to their respective locations to engage in prostitution. Defendant drove the victim to a house to engage in her prostitution activities while Edwards was driven to a truck stop. Defendant provided both the victim and Edwards with drugs and both females gave defendant their earnings from their activities. It was not an abuse of discretion for the court to find that even though the incidents occurred years apart, the evidence presented established a scheme or plan by which defendant engaged in pandering. The evidence presented by Edwards and the victim showed a scheme by which defendant sought out homeless females and helped them engage in prostitution. The prosecutor did not offer Edwards's testimony to prove defendant's propensity to commit the charged act but rather to show defendant's pandering scheme or plan. Edwards's testimony was offered for the proper purpose of establishing defendant's pandering plan or scheme, it was relevant to an issue of consequence at trial, and the probative value of the testimony was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Crear, supra at 169-170. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the testimony. Next, defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion for a mistrial, which was made because of an improper and prejudicial statement made by Detective Muir regarding defendant's parole status. "The grant or denial of a motion for a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and absent a showing of prejudice, reversal is not warranted. . . . The trial court's ruling must be so grossly in error as to deprive the -2-


defendant of a fair trial or amount to a miscarriage of justice." People v Wells, 238 Mich App 383, 390; 605 NW2d 374 (1999). "A mistrial should be granted only for an irregularity that is prejudicial to the rights of the defendant . . . and impairs his ability to get a fair trial." People v Haywood, 209 Mich App 217, 228; 530 NW2d 497 (1995). Detective Muir's statement regarding how he obtained defendant's address

Download PEOPLE OF MI V JESSE JAMES HAYES.pdf

Michigan Law