COA Rules a Teacher is a Teacher, No Matter the Time of Year

-
Bay City Central High School
Earlier this past week, the Michigan Court of Appeals decided the issue of whether a substitute teacher can be tried for criminal sexual conduct with a student when the alleged acts occur in the summertime when school is not in session.  In People v Heidi Leanne Lewis, Docket No. 310949, a per curiam opinion, the Court held that the fact the teacher was not technically in a position of authority over the student at the time of the alleged acts, the Bay County Circuit Court's decision to dismiss the charge against the teacher was, nonetheless, error.  The Court reinstated the case against Heidi Leanne Lewis and remanded the matter to Bay County for further disposition.

Apparently, a number of male students had alleged that Ms. Lewis had engaged with them in sexual acts that occurred during the summer months.  According to the Associated Press, Lewis taught British Literature in a special education class at Bay City Central High School early in 2010. Prosecutors said she had sex with three of her male students that summer. Prosecutors say the trysts did not take place on school property.  The charges were dismissed by Judge Kenneth Schmidt in June, 2012, after the second mistrial.  The court held that the charges should be dismissed because Ms. Lewis was not a contractual employee of the district during the summer months.

The Court of Appeals, however, reversed after a lengthy legislative intent analysis on the meaning of the word "is."  The CSC 3rd statute, MCL 750.520d, states that a person is guilty of CSC in the 3rd degree if the complainant is between 16 and 18, and the defendant "is" a teacher.  The Court found that the dictionary definition of "is" is "be", and "be" means "to occupy a place or position."  The statute does not articulate any time frame in which the act is to have occurred, and the Court reasoned, "Consequently, if a sexual penetration occurs by a substitute teacher after the school bell rings, or on a Saturday, or during the summer prosecution pursuant to MCL 750.520d(1)(e)(i) is not foreclosed."  As long as the defendant occupies the place or position of a substitute teacher and the complainants meet the statutory definition, the defendant may be convicted of the offense.

The Court pointed out that the prosecution's brief failed to conform to the court rules (the prosecution submitted only cross examination of some of the witness testimony), and, I would suspect, had the defendant complained of the deficiencies the Court would have stricken the brief.  However, because their ruling was not very fact specific, and the defendant failed to object, the Court reasoned they had enough facts from the sparse transcripts submitted to rule on the issue.

The prosecution was represented on appeal by Sylvia Linton and the defense by Courtney Thom of Midland.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

My Interview with Justice Maura Corrigan

-
Image
I noticed that the Court of Appeals has issued two published opinions this week dealing with criminal law, but before I post those to our blog, I wanted to alert everyone to a new feature we will be offering to our readers. Today, I am launching a new podcast called "Assistance of Counsel." By following the link here and to the right, you will be able to listen to an exclusive interview I recently had with Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan. Justice Corrigan was gracious enough to sit down with me and discuss various topics dealing with her career, her personal life, the day-to-day operations of the Michigan Supreme Court and the history of the court. Justice Corrigan has been on the Supreme Court since 1999, and the interview is very informative for anyone interested in the inner workings of the Court and Justice Corrigan in particular. Our new podcast offering will be an added feature linked to our blog and to our website, www.floodlaw.com. Soon, as well, our podcast...
Read more

Violation of Sixth Amendment Wrong, but Harmlessly So

-
Image
Have you ever had the situation arise where the prosecution cannot produce the toxicologist who performed the analysis of the drugs in your trial, and, instead, will produce another member of the lab to testify that they have reviewed the work of the analyst and they conclude that the controlled substance is what the report says it is? Turns out such a scenario violates the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation of witnesses. In the case of People v Dendel , decided on August 24, 2010, Court of Appeals’ Judges Borrello and Saad, with Judge Wilder concurring, held that when the CEO of an independent laboratory (AIT Laboratories) testifies to facts in a report from another analyst at his lab, such testimony violates the confrontation clause and the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Melendez-Diaz v Massachusetts , decided last year. Katherine Dendel was convicted following a bench trial before the Honorable Chad Schmucker in the Jackson County Circuit Court. The pros...
Read more

COA to Cox: "You're fired!"

-
Image
Last week, the Michigan Court of Appeals published its opinion in the Attorney General's case against former Wayne County Circuit Judge Mary Waterstone, and in doing so, fired the entire Attorney General's Office and discharged them from any further responsibility for the prosecution. In the People v Mary Waterstone , presented to the Court by Paul Smith and Gerald Evelyn, the Attorney General had agreed to investigate and prosecute, if warranted, allegations that Judge Waterstone, Karen Plants and two Inkster police officers had either testified falsely or knowingly allowed perjured testimony to be presented to the jury in 2005 in the cases of the People v Alexander Aceval and Ricardo Pena.  After the Wayne County Prosecutor recused herself because of a conflict of interest, four other counties also refused the assignment. However, it turns out, the AG had a difficult conflict of interest himself.  Following his conviction, Aceval filed a Federal Sec. 1983 civil righ...
Read more