|
No. 120453 & 120461
| The
People of the State of Michigan, |
|
Richard Ira Dresser (989)895-4185 |
|
Plaintiff-Appellant,
|
|
|
|
and Plaintiff-Appellee,
|
|
|
|
vs.
(Appeal from Court
of Appeals)
|
|
|
|
(Bay -- Schmidt, K.)
|
|
|
|
Mark Drew Perkins,
|
|
James M. Hammond (989)892-2531 |
|
Defendant-Appellee,
|
|
|
|
and Defendant-Appellant.
|
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
120453
Plaintiff-Appellant's Brief on
Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
120461
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Background
Mark
Drew Perkins, a deputy sheriff in Bay County, was charged with first-degree
criminal sexual conduct and felony firearm. During Perkins' preliminary
examination, the complainant testified that Perkins had begun a sexual
relationship with her when she was 12 years old. On the day of the charged
crime, she was sixteen years old and had been away to Mexico on a student
study program. After she returned, she agreed to meet Perkins. When
she met him, he was in full uniform and in a marked patrol car. The
complainant testified that, after she got in the car, she performed
oral sex on him because it was something that he "expected."
She admitted that the defendant did not ask her or force her to perform
the oral sex, but claimed that it was a result of coercion from the
defendant having "manipulated my mind" and that she was afraid
to anger Perkins because he was a "father figure" to her.
She also stated that she felt that Perkins, as a police officer, had
authority over her. At the hearing's conclusion, the district court
judge found her testimony to be "entirely believable and credible."
However, the judge stated, the facts did not support a finding that
Perkins committed first-degree CSC by "force or coercion."
The district court dismissed the charge of first-degree CSC and the
related felony firearm charge. The court, however, found probable cause
that Perkins' sexual conduct amounted to misconduct in office. Bay County
Circuit Judge Kenneth W. Schmidt dismissed the misconduct charge, stating
that the evidence failed to establish that Perkins' sexual conduct on
the date charged arose out of the performance or exercise of his official
duties, or were accomplished under color of his office. The judge also
affirmed the district court's dismissal of the first-degree criminal
sexual conduct and felony firearm charges. In an unpublished per curiam
opinion, the Court of Appeals ordered reinstatement of the criminal
sexual conduct charge. Perkins appeals that ruling. The prosecutor appeals
to reinstate the felony firearm and misconduct in office charges.
|
