|
No. 135402
| The People of the State of Michigan, |
|
Mark R. Kneisel |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Washtenaw - Shelton, D.) |
|
|
| Andre Farah Bond, |
|
Richard B. Ginsberg |
| Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief in Opposition to Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Plaintiff-Appellee's Supplemental Brief>>
Defendant-Appellant's Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Supplemental Brief>>
Background
Andre Bond was employed as a “community assistant” for Lincoln Consolidated Schools in Washtenaw County. Essentially, he was an adult hall monitor at the high school. Several female high school students complained that he was sexually aggressive with them; a couple said that he touched them inappropriately. Bond was charged with five counts of accosting children for immoral purposes, one count of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct, and one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct. One of the accosting counts was dismissed before trial. After a four-day trial, the jury convicted Bond of all the remaining counts. Before sentencing, Bond filed a motion to vacate his convictions, which the judge denied – except as to the second-degree criminal sexual conduct conviction. The prosecutor had not adduced evidence that Bond “used [his position of] authority to coerce the victim to submit,” a necessary element of the crime, the judge said. Accordingly, the judge acquitted Bond of second-degree criminal sexual conduct and substituted a count of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. The judge added that, if his decision was reversed on appeal, a new trial on that count would be granted. Bond was then sentenced to three-year probationary sentences on each count, with the first six months to be served in the county jail. In a two-to-one unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed, with the majority finding the evidence sufficient to show that Bond was in a position of authority over the victim and that the victim submitted to sexual contact as a result. The majority also held that the trial court erred in stating that, if its ruling was reversed, the defendant would be granted a new trial. The dissenting judge would have affirmed the trial judge because he found no evidence that Bond used his authority to cause the victim to submit to the contact. The contact was accomplished by simple force, and that the victim never “submitted,” the dissenting judge reasoned. The case was remanded for resentencing. Bond appeals.
Top of Page
|
