People of Michigan v. Steven Hamilton Street II

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 STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED June 11, 2025 Plaintiff-Appellee, 12:04 PM v No. 362384 Kent Circuit Court STEVEN HAMILTON STREET II, LC No. 20-003725-FC Defendant-Appellant. Before: BOONSTRA, P.J., and REDFORD and MARIANI, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant, Steven Hamilton Street II, appeals as of right his jury trial convictions of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I), MCL 750.520b(2)(b) (person less than 13 years old, defendant 17 years old or older); and one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-II), MCL 750.520c(1)(a) (person less than 13 years old). The trial court sentenced defendant as a third-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.11, to serve concurrent prison terms of 25 to 50 years for each CSC-I conviction, and 7 to 30 years for the CSC-II conviction. On appeal, defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting certain evidence, that the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct, that defendant did not receive effective assistance of counsel, and that the investigating officer mishandled potentially exculpatory evidence. Finding no error requiring reversal, we affirm. I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS The victim, AM, called defendant “Uncle Steve” because of his long-standing friendship with AM’s family, her father in particular. On April 13, 2020, defendant visited AM’s home, where he drank alcohol and smoked marijuana with AM’s father while AM’s mother tended to household tasks. According to testimony at defendant’s trial, the men consumed enough tequila to be described as “very intoxicated.” After the men had eaten, AM’s father fell asleep at the kitchen table, and defendant sat on the couch with AM, who was playing a video game. When AM’s mother finished eating, she went outside to smoke on the porch. She had just lit her cigarette when AM came outside and said that she thought something was wrong with Uncle Steve because he was “messing with his pants.” When AM’s mother asked AM what she meant, AM said that -1- defendant “was trying to undo his pants, he tried to pull my pants down.” AM’s mother recalled AM telling her that defendant pulled down AM’s pants, licked her vagina and asked if it felt good, and lifted up her shirt and touched and licked her breasts. AM’s mother testified that AM was acting “scared” and “nervous and afraid,” as if she “didn’t want to go back inside.” AM was seven years old when these things took place. AM’s mother testified that she went back into the house and confronted defendant as he was preparing to leave, but he denied the allegations and left the house. After AM informed her father of the incident, AM’s parents discussed what would be the right thing to do. AM’s mother took AM to the police station that evening to report the incident. A detective assigned to the case the following day arranged for AM to undergo a forensic interview at the Children’s Advocacy Center (CAC) and a forensic medical examination at the YWCA; both appointments were scheduled for April 15, 2020. During her forensic interview, AM described defendant touching and licking her nipples, licking her vagina, and digitally penetrating her vagina. Stephanie Solis, a registered nurse employed by the Grand Rapids YWCA as the Director of the Nurse Examiner Program, performed AM’s forensic examination, which included collecting swabs of AM’s mouth, vulva, anus, and right breast. Solis sent the swabs in a sexual-assault kit to the Michigan State Police Laboratory for analysis. Defendant was arrested and eventually charged, as indicated. The prosecution extended a plea offer. Defendant rejected the plea offer and went to trial after DNA results showed that defendant’s DNA was on AM’s right breast, along with the DNA of AM and one other contributor, but not on her genitalia. At defendant’s trial, AM testified that she was seven years old when defendant touched her in a way that made her feel uncomfortable and scared. AM recounted that defendant pulled down her pants and used his tongue to lick her vagina underneath her underwear. AM could not remember whether defendant touched any other part of her body. To refresh AM’s memory of the forensic interview, the prosecutor used her laptop and a pair of headphones to show AM a three- minute excerp