http://www.dailytribune.com/article/DT/20140114/NEWS/140119728
Man accused of sexually assaulting boy, 12, in Hazel Park
By Mike McConnell, The Daily Tribune
Posted: 01/14/14, 12:28 PM EST | Updated: on 01/14/2014
5 Comments
A Detroit man who is a nurse faces charges in Hazel Park that he sexually assaulted a 12-year-old boy multiple times.
Glenn Norton, 48, is jailed on $1 million cash bond on three counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and three counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct.
Police said the suspect was a friend of the boy’s family and regularly took him to karate classes at Koei-Kan Karate Club on John R, just a block north of the police station at Nine Mile Road.
“The suspect would pick the victim up from his home and drive him to the karate club,” said Hazel Park Police Chief Martin Barner. “He would isolate the victim in a separate room at the club and perform sexual acts on the victim.”
Police said the owner of the karate club had no knowledge of what Norton was doing and was not involved in the sexual assaults.
Norton sexually assaulted the boy between June and December 2013, police said. The boy reported the incidents to his mother in late December.
“He told his mother and she immediately notified us,” Barner said.
Barner added that police are investigating whether Norton may have sexually assaulted other children.
Norton worked as a pediatric nurse in the intensive care unit at an area hospital which police refused to identify, and as a home care nurse for disabled children, police said.
“We have looked into his work as a home care nurse and there are no victims there,” Barner said.
However, police have done interviews at the hospital where Norton worked and that part of their investigation is continuing.
Norton was arraigned Friday in Hazel Park 43rd District Court and returned there Tuesday for a preliminary hearing.
Parents have to be careful of who they entrust their children with, Barner said.
“Children are one of the most vulnerable segments of our society,” he said. “Unfortunately there are individuals like this suspect who prey on children. I guess in some ways you can never really be sure about an individual you are allowing to watch your children.”
Man accused of sexually assaulting boy, 12, in Hazel Park
By Mike McConnell, The Daily Tribune
Posted: 01/14/14, 12:28 PM EST | Updated: on 01/14/2014
5 Comments
A Detroit man who is a nurse faces charges in Hazel Park that he sexually assaulted a 12-year-old boy multiple times.
Glenn Norton, 48, is jailed on $1 million cash bond on three counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and three counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct.
Police said the suspect was a friend of the boy’s family and regularly took him to karate classes at Koei-Kan Karate Club on John R, just a block north of the police station at Nine Mile Road.
“The suspect would pick the victim up from his home and drive him to the karate club,” said Hazel Park Police Chief Martin Barner. “He would isolate the victim in a separate room at the club and perform sexual acts on the victim.”
Police said the owner of the karate club had no knowledge of what Norton was doing and was not involved in the sexual assaults.
Norton sexually assaulted the boy between June and December 2013, police said. The boy reported the incidents to his mother in late December.
“He told his mother and she immediately notified us,” Barner said.
Barner added that police are investigating whether Norton may have sexually assaulted other children.
Norton worked as a pediatric nurse in the intensive care unit at an area hospital which police refused to identify, and as a home care nurse for disabled children, police said.
“We have looked into his work as a home care nurse and there are no victims there,” Barner said.
However, police have done interviews at the hospital where Norton worked and that part of their investigation is continuing.
Norton was arraigned Friday in Hazel Park 43rd District Court and returned there Tuesday for a preliminary hearing.
Parents have to be careful of who they entrust their children with, Barner said.
“Children are one of the most vulnerable segments of our society,” he said. “Unfortunately there are individuals like this suspect who prey on children. I guess in some ways you can never really be sure about an individual you are allowing to watch your children.”
https://law.justia.com/cases/michigan/court-of-appeals-unpublished/2016/324706.html
https://cases.justia.com/michigan/court-of-appeals-unpublished/2016-324706.pdf?ts=1458129744
-1-
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
UNPUBLISHED
March 15, 2016
v
No. 324706
Oakland Circuit Court
GLEN ALLEN NORTON,
LC No. 14-249040-FC
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: S
AAD
, P.J., and S
AWYER
and H
OEKSTRA
, JJ.
P
ER
C
URIAM
.
Defendant appeals his jury tri
al convictions of three counts o
f first-degree criminal sexual
conduct (CSC-I), MCL 750.520b(2)(b), and three counts of second
-degree criminal sexual
conduct (CSC-II), MCL 750.520c(1)(a). Defendant was sentenced
to 25 years to 80 years’
imprisonment for each CSC-I conviction and 71 months to 15 year
s’ imprisonment for each
CSC-II conviction, with the sentences for the CSC-II conviction
s to run consecutively to the
sentences for the CSC-I convictions. We affirm defendant’s con
victions but remand for a
determination on resentencing of defendant’s CSC-II sentences.
I. EVIDENTIARY ISSUES
A.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in permitting De
tective Xavier Piper to
testify regarding his observati
ons of defendant’s physical resp
onse to the charges at the
arraignment. Primarily, defenda
nt asserts that the testimony w
as more prejudicial than
probative. Alternatively, defendant argues his trial counsel w
as ineffective for failing to object
to this testimony.
To preserve a claim of evident
iary error, “a pa
rty opposing the
admission of evidence
must object at trial and specify the same ground for objection
that it asserts on appeal.”
People v
Aldrich
, 246 Mich App 101, 113; 631 NW2d 67 (2001), citing MRE 103(a)(
1). Defendant’s
counsel did not object to Detective Piper’s testimony regarding
his observations at defendant’s
arraignment. As such, the issue
is not preserved for appellate
review. Unpreserved evidentiary
claims are reviewed for plain error affecting substantial right
s.
People v Chelmicki
, 305 Mich
App 58, 62; 850 NW2d 612 (2014). A plain error is found to aff
ect substantial rights when “the
error affected the outcome of the lower-court proceedings.”
People v Jones
, 468 Mich 345, 356;
-2-
662 NW2d 376 (2003). Reversal is not required unless “the plai
n, unpreserved error resulted in
the conviction of an actually inno
cent defendant or . . . serio
usly affected the fairness, integrity,
or public reputation of the j
udicial proceedings independent of
the defendant’s innocence.”
Id
. at
355.
At trial, Detective Piper testified to observing defendant at
his arraignment hearing. He
described defendant’s physical response to the reading of the c
harges as an obvious erection.
Defendant asserts that Detective
Piper’s characterization of th
e charges as being “graphic” is a
mischaracterization. Although defendant acknowledges that Dete
ctive Piper’s testimony did not
comprise hearsay because it involved nonassertive conduct, see
People v Davis
, 139 Mich App
811, 813; 363 NW2d 35 (1984) (“‘Acts or conduct not intended as
assertive are not hearsay and,
therefore, they are admissible.
It should be noted that nonass
ertive acts or conduct are not an
exception to the hearsay rule-rather, they are not hearsay in t
he first place.’” (citation omitted)),
he contends that the testimony was
more prejudicial than probat
ive.
Even if deemed relevant, evidence can be excluded if its proba
tive value is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfai
r prejudice. MRE 403. Unfair
prejudice is determined to exist
when there is a possibility that the evidence will be attribute
d undue or preemptive weight by a
jury, or if it would be inequitable to permit use of the eviden
ce.
People v Blackston
, 481 Mich
451, 462; 751 NW2d 408 (2008). “‘T
his unfair prejudice refers
to the tendency of the proposed
evidence to adversely affect t
he objecting party’s position by
injecting considerations extraneous
to the merits of the lawsuit . . . .’”
People v McGhee
, 268 Mich App 600, 614; 709 NW2d 595
(2005) (citations omitted). Assuming arguendo that the testimo
ny had little prob
ative value and
was substantially outweighed by undue prejudice, defendant has
failed to demonstrate that its
admission was outcome determinative.
People v Lukity
, 460 Mich 484, 495-496;
596 NW2d 607
(1999). The victim and two othe
r witnesses provided testimony
regarding defendant’s
inappropriate sexual conduct. B
ased on this testimony, we do n
ot believe that the jury would
have reached a different conclu
sion if the testimony of Detecti
ve Piper had been excluded.
Alternatively, defendant contends that counsel’s failure to ob
ject to the challenged
testimony constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. To pr
operly preserve a claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel
for appellate review, a defen
dant is required to move for a new
trial or for a
Ginther
1
hearing.
People v Lopez
, 305 Mich App 686, 693; 854 NW2d 205 (2014).
Because defendant raises for th
e first time on appeal a claim o
f ineffective assistance of counsel,
it is not properly preserved. “
A claim of ineffective assistan
ce of counsel presents a mixed
question of law and fact.”
People v Brown
, 294 Mich App 377, 387; 811 NW2d 531 (2011).
“This Court reviews a trial court’s findings of fact, if any, f
or clear error, and reviews de novo
the ultimate constitutional issue
arising from an ineffective a
ssistance of counsel claim.”
Id
. A
finding is deemed to be clearly erroneous if “the reviewing cou
rt is left with a definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been made.”
Lopez
, 305 Mich App at 693 (citation and quotation
marks omitted). “Where claims of ineffective assistance of cou
nsel have not been preserved,
1
People v Ginther
, 390 Mich 436; 212 NW2d 922 (1973).
https://cases.justia.com/michigan/court-of-appeals-unpublished/2016-324706.pdf?ts=1458129744
-1-
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
UNPUBLISHED
March 15, 2016
v
No. 324706
Oakland Circuit Court
GLEN ALLEN NORTON,
LC No. 14-249040-FC
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: S
AAD
, P.J., and S
AWYER
and H
OEKSTRA
, JJ.
P
ER
C
URIAM
.
Defendant appeals his jury tri
al convictions of three counts o
f first-degree criminal sexual
conduct (CSC-I), MCL 750.520b(2)(b), and three counts of second
-degree criminal sexual
conduct (CSC-II), MCL 750.520c(1)(a). Defendant was sentenced
to 25 years to 80 years’
imprisonment for each CSC-I conviction and 71 months to 15 year
s’ imprisonment for each
CSC-II conviction, with the sentences for the CSC-II conviction
s to run consecutively to the
sentences for the CSC-I convictions. We affirm defendant’s con
victions but remand for a
determination on resentencing of defendant’s CSC-II sentences.
I. EVIDENTIARY ISSUES
A.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in permitting De
tective Xavier Piper to
testify regarding his observati
ons of defendant’s physical resp
onse to the charges at the
arraignment. Primarily, defenda
nt asserts that the testimony w
as more prejudicial than
probative. Alternatively, defendant argues his trial counsel w
as ineffective for failing to object
to this testimony.
To preserve a claim of evident
iary error, “a pa
rty opposing the
admission of evidence
must object at trial and specify the same ground for objection
that it asserts on appeal.”
People v
Aldrich
, 246 Mich App 101, 113; 631 NW2d 67 (2001), citing MRE 103(a)(
1). Defendant’s
counsel did not object to Detective Piper’s testimony regarding
his observations at defendant’s
arraignment. As such, the issue
is not preserved for appellate
review. Unpreserved evidentiary
claims are reviewed for plain error affecting substantial right
s.
People v Chelmicki
, 305 Mich
App 58, 62; 850 NW2d 612 (2014). A plain error is found to aff
ect substantial rights when “the
error affected the outcome of the lower-court proceedings.”
People v Jones
, 468 Mich 345, 356;
-2-
662 NW2d 376 (2003). Reversal is not required unless “the plai
n, unpreserved error resulted in
the conviction of an actually inno
cent defendant or . . . serio
usly affected the fairness, integrity,
or public reputation of the j
udicial proceedings independent of
the defendant’s innocence.”
Id
. at
355.
At trial, Detective Piper testified to observing defendant at
his arraignment hearing. He
described defendant’s physical response to the reading of the c
harges as an obvious erection.
Defendant asserts that Detective
Piper’s characterization of th
e charges as being “graphic” is a
mischaracterization. Although defendant acknowledges that Dete
ctive Piper’s testimony did not
comprise hearsay because it involved nonassertive conduct, see
People v Davis
, 139 Mich App
811, 813; 363 NW2d 35 (1984) (“‘Acts or conduct not intended as
assertive are not hearsay and,
therefore, they are admissible.
It should be noted that nonass
ertive acts or conduct are not an
exception to the hearsay rule-rather, they are not hearsay in t
he first place.’” (citation omitted)),
he contends that the testimony was
more prejudicial than probat
ive.
Even if deemed relevant, evidence can be excluded if its proba
tive value is substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfai
r prejudice. MRE 403. Unfair
prejudice is determined to exist
when there is a possibility that the evidence will be attribute
d undue or preemptive weight by a
jury, or if it would be inequitable to permit use of the eviden
ce.
People v Blackston
, 481 Mich
451, 462; 751 NW2d 408 (2008). “‘T
his unfair prejudice refers
to the tendency of the proposed
evidence to adversely affect t
he objecting party’s position by
injecting considerations extraneous
to the merits of the lawsuit . . . .’”
People v McGhee
, 268 Mich App 600, 614; 709 NW2d 595
(2005) (citations omitted). Assuming arguendo that the testimo
ny had little prob
ative value and
was substantially outweighed by undue prejudice, defendant has
failed to demonstrate that its
admission was outcome determinative.
People v Lukity
, 460 Mich 484, 495-496;
596 NW2d 607
(1999). The victim and two othe
r witnesses provided testimony
regarding defendant’s
inappropriate sexual conduct. B
ased on this testimony, we do n
ot believe that the jury would
have reached a different conclu
sion if the testimony of Detecti
ve Piper had been excluded.
Alternatively, defendant contends that counsel’s failure to ob
ject to the challenged
testimony constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. To pr
operly preserve a claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel
for appellate review, a defen
dant is required to move for a new
trial or for a
Ginther
1
hearing.
People v Lopez
, 305 Mich App 686, 693; 854 NW2d 205 (2014).
Because defendant raises for th
e first time on appeal a claim o
f ineffective assistance of counsel,
it is not properly preserved. “
A claim of ineffective assistan
ce of counsel presents a mixed
question of law and fact.”
People v Brown
, 294 Mich App 377, 387; 811 NW2d 531 (2011).
“This Court reviews a trial court’s findings of fact, if any, f
or clear error, and reviews de novo
the ultimate constitutional issue
arising from an ineffective a
ssistance of counsel claim.”
Id
. A
finding is deemed to be clearly erroneous if “the reviewing cou
rt is left with a definite and firm
conviction that a mistake has been made.”
Lopez
, 305 Mich App at 693 (citation and quotation
marks omitted). “Where claims of ineffective assistance of cou
nsel have not been preserved,
1
People v Ginther
, 390 Mich 436; 212 NW2d 922 (1973).