If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports. STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED September 12, 2019 Plaintiff-Appellee, v No. 340358 Macomb Circuit Court HAROLD VINCENT WILLIAMS, LC No. 2016-003915-FH Defendant-Appellant. Before: JANSEN, P.J., and CAMERON and TUKEL, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant, a high school teacher, appeals as of right his jury trial conviction of third- degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-III), MCL 750.520d(1)(e)(i), for engaging in sexual penetration with a student under the age of 18. The trial court sentenced defendant to 20 months to 15 years’ imprisonment. We affirm. The jury found that defendant, a 43-year-old teacher at a public high school, engaged in sexual penetration with a 17-year-old female student at school. The prosecution presented evidence that after the police were notified that defendant may be having an inappropriate relationship with a student, an investigation led the police to the victim. The victim was originally from Bangladesh, and had been in the United States for two years. She had been a student at the school where defendant taught, and was part of the school’s Pharmacy Tech Program, which defendant ran. The victim turned 18 years old in March 2016, and graduated from high school at the end of the 2015-2016 school year. When the police went to defendant’s apartment in September 2016, the victim was there. She claimed to be in a relationship with defendant at that time, but was reluctant to speak with the police about defendant. She told the police that she and defendant kissed in February 2016, but denied having sex with defendant until after she turned 18 years old. Later, however, the victim disclosed to detectives that she and defendant first had sexual intercourse on March 1, 2016, when she was still only 17 years old. At defendant’s preliminary examination, the victim testified that she and defendant kissed in February 2016, and had sexual intercourse in his classroom after school on March 1, 2016, or near the end of February 2016. The victim further -1- testified that defendant told her that he was not permitted to have sex with her because she was his student and only 17 years old, and he cautioned her “not to tell anyone.” The victim later recanted, claiming that although she and defendant had sexual intercourse, it did not occur until after she turned 18 years old. At trial, evidence was presented that after the preliminary examination, defendant and the victim had numerous communications in violation of a no-contact order. The prosecutor argued that the victim recanted because of influence from defendant and members of his family. The victim acknowledged her preliminary examination testimony at trial, but testified that she was mistaken about the date, and she repeatedly asserted that she and defendant did not engage in sexual intercourse until after she turned 18 years old. The defense argued that defendant was not guilty of any crime because ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals