PEOPLE OF MI V ROBERT GLENN DECKER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
May 19, 2000
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 217836
Barry Circuit Court
LC No. 98-000173-FC
ROBERT GLENN DECKER,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Bandstra, C.J., and Jansen and Whitbeck, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
A jury convicted defendant Robert Glenn Decker of four counts of first-degree criminal sexual
conduct, MCL 750.520b(1)(a); MSA 28.788(2)(1)(a). The trial court sentenced Decker to an
enhanced prison sentence as a fourth habitual offender, MCL 769.12; MSA 28.1084, of four life terms.
Decker appeals as of right. We affirm.
I. Basic Facts And Procedural History
The case arises from Decker’s sexual abuse of two young boys in 1992. At trial, the first victim
testified that he was born on November 3, 1981. Until the age of fourteen, he lived with his parents and
siblings in Hastings. “[B]etween summer and winter” of 1992, Decker lived in “a tent . . . out in [the
first victim’s parents’] back yard”; the first victim’s parents confirmed that Decker lived in their back
yard during the summer of 1992. The first victim gave detailed testimony about three specific instances
of sexual abuse by Decker. On one occasion, while Decker was watching the first victim for his
parents, Decker told him to “suck his penis” and that he then performed fellatio on Decker. On another
occasion, the first victim masturbated Decker after being told to do so by the first victim’s father. On a
third occasion, Decker paid the first victim’s father “twenty dollars in food stamps,” and in return the
first victim “had to let [Decker ] have sex . . . in my butt.”
The second victim, the first victim’s brother, testified that he was born on July 18, 1985, and
lived in Hastings with his parents until 1995. The second victim testified that Decker sexually abused
him approximately “twice a day” while he was living in the tent in the yard, and stated that he was
forced to perform fellatio on Decker “millions of times.”
-1
At trial, Sherri Irwin testified as an expert in the field of counseling sexually abused children.
Irwin graduated from Calvin College in 1992 with a degree in psychology. She then worked for three
years providing foster care for sexually and physically abused and neglected children through Bethany
Christian Services residential treatment program. In 1995, Irwin enrolled in a graduate program at
Indiana University, where she studied and became “familiar with the facts and circumstances of” cases
involving the sexual abuse of children. In 1997, she received a master’s degree in counseling from
Indiana University. From 1997 through the time of trial she was employed as a “unit therapist” at
Bethany. As a unit therapist, Irwin was responsible for “the case management counseling services of
eleven residents.” The residents of Bethany are children who have been placed in the program by the
juvenile court or the Family Independence Agency. These children generally stay at Bethany for fifteen
to eighteen months. A majority of the children Irwin has counseled at Bethany have been victims of
sexual abuse and they were all sexual offenders. At the time of trial, nine out of the eleven children on
Irwin’s caseload had admitted to being sexually abused.
The prosecutor called Irwin to testify to explain the first victim’s delay in reporting that Decker
had sexually abused him until after he had been in the sex offender treatment program at Bethany for
approximately one year.1 The first victim testified that he did not report Decker’s abuse earlier because
he “was afraid [he] would get in trouble – for going along with the sexual offenses.” Irwin testified that
it has been her experience that victims of sexual abuse often delay discussing the abuse during
counseling.
What I tend to see is a more sometimes periphery or – or certain elements of
the abuse. And then once the discussions begin and the child is able to continue in
therapy, there tends to be more disclosure when the child feels safe.
***
Often times what I see in the course of developing a relationship with one of the
residents on my unit is that after a period of time they may finally begin to feel safe, and
then they may disclose for the first time some new information that hasn’t already been
known or reported to the authorities.
At trial, Decker admitted that he lived in the victims’ parents’ back yard in 1992, but denied sexually
abusing the victims.
II. Expert Testimony
A. Preservation Of The Issue And Standard of Review
Decker argues that Irwin was improperly allowed to testify as an expert. Decker objected to
Irwin’s qualifications. Accordingly, the issue is preserved for appeal. The trial court has the discretion
to determine if a witness is an expert and if his or her testimony is admissible. Mulholland v DEC Int’l
Corp, 432 Mich 395, 402; 443 NW2d 340 (1989). The trial court’s decision on these issues will not
be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. Id.
-2
B. Admission of Expert Testimony
There are three prerequisites to admitting expert testimony: “(1) the witness must be an expert;
(2) there must be facts in evidence that require or are subject to examination and analysis by a
competent expert; and (3) there must be knowledge in a particular area ‘that belongs more to an expert
than to a common man.’” King v Taylor Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc, 184 Mich App 204, 215; 457
NW2d 42 (1990), quoting O’Dowd v Linehan, 385 Mich 491, 509-510; 189 NW2d 814 (1986). A
witness may be qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education; the test for
qualification is broad. MRE 702; Mulholland, supra at 403.
C. Irwin’s Qualifications
We conclude that Irwin was properly qualified to testify as an expert in the field of counseling
sexually abused children; as we set out above, her qualifications were extensive and directly relevant to
the issue concerning which she testified. Further, we recognize that the knowledge that victims of sexual
abuse often will not discuss the abuse until they have developed a trusting relationship with a counselor
is knowledge that “belongs more to an expert than to a common man.” King, supra at 215. Because
the three prerequisites for admitting expert testimony were satisfied, we conclude that the trial court
properly allowed Irwin to testify that it is common for victims of sexual abuse to delay reporting or
discussing such abuse.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ William C. Whitbeck
1
The first victim was sent to Bethany for treatment because he had sexually abused his younger brother,
the second victim.
-3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
