People of Michigan v. Keith Darnell Hollimon
Court
Unknown Court
Decided
June 6, 2025
Case Summary
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 STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED June 06, 2025 Plaintiff-Appellee, 1:53 PM v No. 370237 Oakland Circuit Court KEITH DARNELL HOLLIMON, LC No. 2023-286362-FC Defendant-Appellant. Before: K. F. KELLY, P.J., and O’BRIEN and ACKERMAN, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals his jury convictions of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I): one under MCL 750.520b(1)(a) (sexual penetration of a person under the age of 13) and the other under MCL 750.520b(1)(b)(ii) (sexual penetration of a person at least 13 but less than 16 and related to the defendant by blood). He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.12, to concurrent terms of 25 to 50 years. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND This case arises from defendant’s sexual abuse of his great-niece between 2021 and 2023, when she was between the ages of 11 and 13. Trial testimony established that the victim primarily lived with her mother in Georgia during that time but spent weeks- and months-long visits at the home of her maternal grandmother—defendant’s sister—in Pontiac, Michigan. The victim testified that defendant sexually abused her multiple times in 2021 and 2023 while she was at her grandmother’s home, including through penetration. The final incident occurred on April 8, 2023. On that date, the victim was assisting defendant with a project while her grandmother worked in the basement. As the victim approached the stairs to the second floor, defendant bent her over the stairs, pulled down her bottoms and underwear, and pulled down his pants. The assault ended abruptly when they heard the grandmother’s footsteps ascending from the basement. The incident was recorded on the grandmother’s security camera. After reviewing the footage, the grandmother reported the sexual abuse to law enforcement. -1- Defendant took the stand and denied the allegations. In response to the video of the April 8, 2023 incident, he claimed that the victim walked to the stairwell and pulled down her pants, prompting him to begin unbuttoning his pants before becoming disgusted with himself and stopping. The jury convicted defendant as charged, and the trial court sentenced him as described above. Defendant now appeals. II. ANALYSIS A. PROSECUTORIAL ERROR Defendant first contends that he was denied his right to a fair trial because the prosecutor improperly vouched for the victim’s credibility and asserted that defendant was a liar during closing argument. Because defendant did not object or request a curative instruction, we review for plain error affecting substantial rights. People v Isrow, 339 Mich App 522, 529; 984 NW2d 528 (2021). To obtain relief under that standard, a defendant must show that “(1) an error occurred, (2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, and (3) the plain error affected substantial rights, i.e., prejudiced defendant by affecting the outcome of the proceedings.” People v Anderson, 341 Mich App 272, 279; 989 NW2d 832 (2022) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Even if those requirements are met, reversal is warranted only if the error “resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant” or “seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings independent of the defendant’s innocence.” People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763- 764; 597 NW2d 130 (1999) (cleaned up). “[T]he test for prosecutorial misconduct[1] is whether a defendant was denied a fair and impartial trial.” People v Dobek, 274 Mich App 58, 63; 732 NW2d 546 (2007). Claims of prosecutorial error “are decided case by case, and this Court must examine the entire record and evaluate a prosecutor’s remarks in context.” Id. at 64. We evaluate a prosecutor’s comments “in light of defense arguments and the relationship the comments bear to the evidence admitted at trial.” Id. “Generally, prosecutors are accorded great latitude regarding their arguments and conduct.” People v Cooper, 309 Mich App 74, 90; 867 NW2d 452 (2015) (cleaned up). The prosecution may argue the evidence and reasonable inferences from it but must avoid making prejudicial remarks. People v Bahoda, 448 Mich 261, 282-283;
Case Details
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 6, 2025
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools
Case Summary
Summary of the key points and legal principles
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 06, 2025 Plaintiff-Appellee, 1:53 PM
v No. 370237 Oakland Circuit Court KEITH DARNELL HOLLIMON, LC No. 2023-286362-FC
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: K. F. KELLY, P.J., and O’BRIEN and ACKERMAN, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals his jury convictions of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual
conduct (CSC-I): one under MCL 750.520b(1)(a) (sexual penetration of a person under the age of 13) and the other under MCL 750.520b(1)(b)(ii) (sexual penetration of a person at least 13 but less than 16 and related to the defendant by blood). He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.12, to concurrent terms of 25 to 50 years. We affirm.
I. BACKGROUND
This case arises from defendant’s sexual abuse of his great-niece between 2021 and 2023,
when she was between the ages of 11 and 13.
Trial testimony established that the victim primarily lived with her mother in Georgia
during that time but spent weeks- and months-long visits at the home of her maternal grandmother—defendant’s sister—in Pontiac, Michigan.
The victim testified that defendant sexually abused her multiple times in 2021 and 2023
while she was at her grandmother’s home, including through penetration. The final incident occurred on April 8, 2023. On that date, the victim was assisting defendant with a project while her grandmother worked in the basement. As the victim approached the stairs to the second floor, defendant bent her over the stairs, pulled down her bottoms and underwear, and pulled down his pants. The assault ended abruptly when they heard the grandmother’s footsteps ascending from the basement. The incident was recorded on the grandmother’s security camera. After reviewing the footage, the grandmother reported the sexual abuse to law enforcement.
-1-
Defendant took the stand and denied the allegations. In response to the video of the April 8, 2023 incident, he claimed that the victim walked to the stairwell and pulled down her pants, prompting him to begin unbuttoning his pants before becoming disgusted with himself and stopping.
The jury convicted defendant as charged, and the trial court sentenced him as described
above. Defendant now appeals.
II. ANALYSIS
A. PROSECUTORIAL ERROR
Defendant first contends that he was denied his right to a fair trial because the prosecutor
improperly vouched for the victim’s credibility and asserted that defendant was a liar during closing argument.
Because defendant did not object or request a curative instruction, we review for plain error
affecting substantial rights. People v Isrow, 339 Mich App 522, 529; 984 NW2d 528 (2021). To obtain relief under that standard, a defendant must show that “(1) an error occurred, (2) the error was plain, i.e., clear or obvious, and (3) the plain error affected substantial rights, i.e., prejudiced defendant by affecting the outcome of the proceedings.” People v Anderson, 341 Mich App 272, 279; 989 NW2d 832 (2022) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Even if those requirements are met, reversal is warranted only if the error “resulted in the conviction of an actually innocent defendant” or “seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings independent of the defendant’s innocence.” People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763- 764; 597 NW2d 130 (1999) (cleaned up).
“[T]he test for prosecutorial misconduct[1] is whether a defendant was denied a fair and
impartial trial.” People v Dobek, 274 Mich App 58, 63; 732 NW2d 546 (2007). Claims of prosecutorial error “are decided case by case, and this Court must examine the entire record and evaluate a prosecutor’s remarks in context.” Id. at 64. We evaluate a prosecutor’s comments “in light of defense arguments and the relationship the comments bear to the evidence admitted at trial.” Id.
“Generally, prosecutors are accorded great latitude regarding their arguments and
conduct.” People v Cooper, 309 Mich App 74, 90; 867 NW2d 452 (2015) (cleaned up). The prosecution may argue the evidence and reasonable inferences from it but must avoid making prejudicial remarks. People v Bahoda, 448 Mich 261, 282-283;
Case Information
Detailed case metadata and classifications
Court Proceedings
Document Details
Similar Cases
Cases with similar legal principles and precedents
Case Details
Legal case information
Status
Decided
Date Decided
June 6, 2025
Legal Significance
Case importance metrics
Metadata
Additional information
Quick Actions
Case management tools