People of Michigan v. Anthony Lamar Bonner

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 STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED June 24, 2025 Plaintiff-Appellee, 9:28 AM v No. 359850 Ingham Circuit Court ANTHONY LAMAR BONNER, LC No. 17-000577-FC Defendant-Appellant. Before: YATES, P.J., and YOUNG and WALLACE, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant, Anthony Lamar Bonner, was tried and convicted by a jury in 2018 of criminal sexual conduct offenses committed against his 9-year-old great-niece, AL, but this Court reversed those convictions based on a violation of the right to a public trial. People v Bonner, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued April 16, 2020 (Docket No. 346460). In 2021, defendant was retried and convicted again by a jury of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC- I), MCL 750.520b(2)(b); second-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-II), MCL 750.520c(2)(b), and assault with intent to commit criminal sexual penetration, MCL 750.520g(1). For his crimes, defendant was sentenced, as a fourth-offense habitual offender, to serve a minimum prison term of 25 years on each count of conviction. The trial court also ordered the prison term for CSC-I to run consecutive to the term of imprisonment for the assault offense. On appeal, defendant contests his convictions and his prison sentences on several grounds. We affirm. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND When the offenses of conviction occurred, AL and her mother, Ashley, were staying in a homeless shelter. Ashley said that they were both close to defendant, Ashley’s uncle, who helped them with rides and occasionally took the children to school.1 1 Ashley died before the second trial began. Ashley had testified at the first trial, so her testimony from that trial was read into the record at the second trial. Before the second trial, defense counsel -1-  AL testified that, on the day of the assault, Ashley was in jail and AL was living at a shelter. Defendant picked up AL and her brother to drive both of them to school, dropped off AL’s brother at his school, and then drove AL to his house. When they arrived at defendant’s house, AL got on the couch. Defendant then grabbed AL, carried her to his bedroom, and tossed her onto his bed. Defendant was able to remove AL’s pants and underwear despite her struggles. AL stated that she was screaming, kicking, and saying stop, but defendant grabbed her, told her that he was going to kill her, and slapped her in the face. Defendant performed cunnilingus on AL. He stopped when AL said she had to use the bathroom. After AL used the bathroom, defendant took AL back into the bedroom, removed his clothes, and tried to penetrate AL’s anus with his penis. AL promptly told Ashley about the assault during a telephone call while Ashley was in jail. AL said that defendant had touched her “middle,” which Ashley knew meant AL’s “private.” But on cross-examination at trial, Ashley admitted that she was not sure that that is what AL had said on the call. During that conversation, AL did not tell Ashley that defendant had penetrated her or that her clothes were removed. In response, Ashley told another person to notify the police. The next day, May 23, 2017, AL went to see a sexual assault nurse examiner. During that examination, AL disclosed that defendant had rubbed her private parts while her clothes were still on. She also told the nurse examiner that defendant had hit her and had threatened to kill her. The nurse examiner noticed a linear mark on AL’s face that was consistent with being hit by a hand, so the nurse examiner took photographs of bruising on AL’s face. Thomas Cottrell testified for the prosecution as an expert in “child sexual abuse and child sexual abuse episodes.” Cottrell’s testimony was the subject of a pretrial motion from defendant, and the trial court entered an order restricting Cottrell’s testimony. Under that order, Cottrell was barred from testifying: (1) that sexual abuse occurred; (2) that AL was credible; (3) that defendant was guilty; (4) about “any numerical or quantitative measurement of the frequency with which children fabricate allegations of sexual assault”; and (5) about “any description of specific factual scenarios in which children are more likely to fabricate allegations of sexual assault, especially if those specific factu