People of Michigan v. Brian Daniel Blackketter

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 STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED August 05, 2025 Plaintiff-Appellee, 11:28 AM v No. 365456 Eaton Circuit Court BRIAN DANIEL BLACKKETTER, LC No. 2020-020058-FC Defendant-Appellant. Before: GADOLA, C.J., and SWARTZLE and LETICA, JJ. PER CURIAM. Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I), MCL 750.520b(1)(b)(ii) (relationship; digital penetration), two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-II), MCL 750.520c(1)(b)(ii) (relationship; sexual contact), and one count of third-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-III), MCL 750.520d(1)(b) (force or coercion; oral penetration). He was found not guilty of one additional count of CSC-III (anal penetration). Defendant was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 135 months to 40 years for the CSC-I conviction and 10 to 15 years each for his CSC-II and CSC-III convictions. Defendant now appeals by right. We affirm. I. FACTS The sexual abuse began while the victim, JM, was living in Colorado with his mother and defendant, JM’s stepfather. Over the next nearly 10 years, the abuse evolved from sexual touching to sexual penetration. JM told his half-sister about the abuse when JM was about 15 years old. That disclosure led to an investigation by Child Protective Services (CPS), but the investigation was closed when JM disavowed the allegations. In November 2018, patrol officers from the Eaton County Sheriff’s Office were dispatched to make contact with JM after he called the county’s 911 emergency line. JM had left the family home after an argument with defendant over a cell phone and was just walking down a road. Christopher Cunningham, one of the responding officers, was aware of the prior CPS investigation. Speaking with JM alone, Cunningham raised the issue of sexual assault, and JM told Cunningham that defendant had been sexually abusing him for years. -1-  The allegations of abuse led to proceedings in the family division of the circuit court (family court) regarding JM’s three younger half-brothers. JM was called to testify about the abuse at one of the hearings.1 Roughly four months after speaking with Cunningham, JM e-mailed a letter to the Eaton County Prosecutor and recanted his allegations. JM stated that he was coerced by the police to make the allegations. Moreover, what JM had told police and lawyers “was spoken mainly from anger and stress as well as coercing from those who were questioning [JM] at the time.” At trial, JM testified that what he had written in the e-mail was untrue and that he was motivated to write the letter by his mother, who told JM that the only way to stop the family court proceedings was for JM to recant. At the criminal trial, the prosecution sought to introduce other-acts evidence pursuant to MCL 768.27a. The prosecution asked to have JM testify about defendant’s sexual abuse of him while the family was living in Colorado. Defendant opposed the request on the grounds that any minimal probative value the evidence might have was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and the danger the jury would be confused about what criminal acts he was on trial for in Michigan. Defendant also argued that the jurors could find him guilty not because the evidence showed beyond a reasonable doubt he committed the crimes charged, but because the other-acts evidence led them to believe he was a bad man who needed to be punished. The circuit court concluded the other-acts evidence was relevant and its probative value was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The court further found that the charged and uncharged acts were similar and fell under MCL 768.27a. The court explained: [I]n Colorado it started with the touching and the fellatio. And then, increased to continued fellatio and anal sex. Still, obviously, there would be a degree of touching, but I think it’s a stretch to argue that these are so dissimilar that that should invalidate the probative value. Same Defendant, same child, same sexual abuse. And I think it is important that the victim be able to testify that this started back in Colorado and continued in Michigan. . . .