Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v RICK ALAN BROWNRIGG, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED November 20, 2007

No. 270303 Saginaw Circuit Court LC No. 05-026641-FH

Before: Talbot, P.J., and Fitzgerald and Kelly, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right his jury trial conviction of third-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC III), MCL 750.520d(1)(b). Defendant was sentenced to 20 months to five years' imprisonment. We affirm. This matter arises from a complaint by defendant's former wife alleging defendant raped her on January 9, 2004.1 The victim stated that defendant appeared uninvited at her home wanting to take the minor children to school. She denied defendant's request. When the victim returned home she went into the basement to use a tanning bed. When leaving the room that contained the tanning bed she saw defendant in the basement. Defendant blocked the victim's exit from the room, exposed himself and suggested they should engage in sexual intercourse. She verbally refused and managed to get past defendant and went upstairs. In the kitchen, defendant pinned the victim between a table and cupboard and held her by the wrist. Despite physical efforts to resist defendant and her verbal refusals, defendant forced the victim to touch his penis and managed to pull her pants partially down. Defendant then inserted his finger into her vagina and touched his penis to her stomach. At this moment, defendant ejaculated on the victim and the floor. Defendant told her that he would leave if she kissed him. The victim complied and defendant left the home. That evening, the victim informed her sister of the encounter with defendant, but did not immediately file a police report. She did obtain a personal protection order (PPO) against defendant that was served January 16, 2004. Defendant then began to repeatedly telephone the
1

Defendant and his former wife were married in 1987 and a judgment of divorce was entered March 1, 2005.

-1-


victim, which led to her complaining to police about violation of the PPO and her report of the January 9, 2004 assault. While not specifically admitting that the encounter with the victim involved sexual contact, defendant purportedly acknowledged in a telephone conversation with his sister that he had "forced [her] and she said no." At trial, defendant denied sexually assaulting the victim. Defendant asserted the parties attempted to reconcile after he was arrested and that their divorce proceedings were placed "on hold." Defendant asserted, even after issuance of the PPO, that he would frequently have dinner at the victim's home, pick up the children from that location to take them to school and that the victim would phone and request his assistance with home repairs. Defendant testified that this pattern of interaction continued after the divorce was finalized, until the victim obtained another PPO precluding contact with her in June 2005 due to defendant's alcohol use. Defendant was arraigned on September 21, 2005. On December 29, 2005, defendant filed a motion in limine seeking to introduce evidence that he and the victim "had prior and subsequent [to the charged act] consensual sexual relations" and had "during the course of their marriage, engaged in acts similar to those which form the basis of the charges." Defendant asserted that the victim acknowledged having consensual sexual relations with him in December 2003 and that he would testify that they "continued to have consensual sexual intercourse until December 2004." In contrast, the victim acknowledged having consensual sexual relations with defendant in early 2003, but asserted the incident that occurred December 24, 2003 was not consensual. The victim asserted that she permitted defendant to stay overnight on Christmas Eve to enable him to watch the children open their Christmas gifts. When defendant tried to initiate sexual contact the victim pushed him away but due to fear of awakening and frightening the children asleep in a room nearby, did not engage in loud or aggressive protests against defendant's behavior. She denied that this contact was consensual. The victim asserted that the January 9, 2004 incident, which was the basis for defendant's arrest was also against her will and denied engaging in any consensual sexual acts with defendant after the early months of 2003. The trial court conducted an in camera review of defendant's motion in limine. The victim and counsel were in attendance, but defendant was not permitted to be present. The trial court explained its exclusion of defendant, stating: Because some of the evidence may be more prejudicial than probative, and I'm trying to sort out which is probative, he will hear that evidence, and the prejudicial. But evidence that is irrelevant I don't believe he's entitled to. *** We're going to come out and then make a record of those things that are going to be up for further consideration, but we're just trying to sort out what may come in and what may not, and then we'll take further argument on whether they should or they shouldn't. At the conclusion of the in camera review, the trial court denied defendant's motion, ruling in relevant part:

-2-


[M]erely being married and having children does not give a license otherwise to rape. While such evidence is a fair amount

Download PEOPLE OF MI V RICK ALAN BROWNRIGG.pdf

Michigan Law