PEOPLE OF MI V PETER CHRISTOPHER MOSES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 3, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 277151
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 06-007376-01
PETER CHRISTOPHER MOSES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Davis, P.J., and Murray and Beckering, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was convicted, following a bench trial, of two counts of first-degree criminal
sexual conduct, MCL 750.520b(1)(b), and one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct,
MCL 750.520c(1)(b). He was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of 12 to 20 years for each
first-degree CSC conviction, and 10 to 15 years for the second-degree CSC conviction. He
appeals as of right. We affirm defendant’s convictions, but remand for further proceedings
regarding defendant’s sentences. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to
MCR 7.214(E).
The complainant, defendant’s stepdaughter, testified that one night in April 2004,
sometime around Easter, she was sleeping in her bedroom and awoke to find defendant rubbing
her buttocks with his hand inside her pajamas. He shifted his hand and began touching her
vagina. Before departing, defendant told her not to tell anybody because doing so would “mess
up our family.”
The complainant testified that the same thing happened on a subsequent night. At that
time or on a third occasion, defendant removed the complainant’s pajama bottoms, performed
cunnilingus, and then penetrated her vagina with his penis. The complainant testified that
defendant performed the same acts on at least one other occasion.
The complainant confided in a friend, who advised her to tell her mother, but she
declined to do so because she thought “[i]t was going to break up our family.” She also feared
that her mother would not believe her or that the information would so upset her mother that it
could jeopardize her mother’s health. The stress of what had happened led the complainant to
mutilate herself by carving her name into her arm with a knife. The complainant’s mother
noticed the markings, but thought they were inked on. When she later realized that the
complainant had cut herself, she confronted her. The complainant would not speak, but
-1-
expressed herself in writing. She wrote that she was “mad at myself for letting something
happen that shouldn’t have. . . . The thing that happened to me is the same thing that happened
to Shanice in that book A Day Late And A Dollar Short. W/her stepfather George.” She also
explained why she had not come forward immediately. The mother recognized the reference to
the book as a reference to sexual molestation and questioned her daughter further. She then sent
her to her aunt’s house before confronting her husband and calling the police.
The police were called and took a report on July 12, 2004, but did not investigate the case
until a year later. The parties stipulated that on July 5, 2005, the complainant gave a statement in
which she used slang terms to indicate that defendant had performed cunnilingus and had
ejaculated on her stomach. The complainant denied using such language but admitted to signing
the statement.
Defendant denied that he ever molested the complainant. He speculated that she had
invented the allegations because of two incidents that occurred earlier in the year. One incident,
which occurred in January or February 2004, culminated in defendant refusing the complainant’s
request for a cell phone. The other incident occurred in March 2004. Defendant found the
complainant sitting on a boy’s lap. He confronted them both and embarrassed the complainant in
front of her friend. He also reported the incident to the complainant’s mother. Defendant further
testified that he had frequent contact with children over the past 20 years through his work as a
lifeguard and swimming instructor and no one had ever accused him of doing anything
inappropriate.
Angela Davenport, defendant’s new girlfriend, testified that defendant moved in with her
in March 2006. At that time, she had five daughters between the ages of 14 and 18 living with
her. Davenport stated that there were no problems between defendant and her daughters. She
further testified that defendant had a reputation for honesty.
Defendant had testified that after the investigation was reopened, the police never
contacted him and asked for an interview. If they had, he would have appeared for one. The
officer in charge testified that he spoke to defendant on the telephone about the allegations.
Defendant agreed to come in a few days later for an interview but failed to appear.
Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in admitting the complainant’s written
statement into evidence. Defendant preserved this issue by objecting at trial. People v Aldrich,
246 Mich App 101, 113; 631 NW2d 67 (2001). We review the trial court’s decision to admit the
statement for an abuse of discretion. People v Hine, 467 Mich 242, 250; 650 NW2d 659 (2002).
“When the decision regarding the admission of evidence involves a preliminary question of law,
such as whether a statute or rule of evidence precludes admissibility of the evidence, the issue is
reviewed de novo. People v Washington, 468 Mich 667, 670-671; 664 NW2d 203 (2003).
If the statement was offered to prove the truth of the matters asserted, it constituted
hearsay. MRE 801(c). Although hearsay, it could be admitted as evidence of the complainant’s
then existing state of mind, emotion, sensation, or physical condition, excluding any statement of
memory or belief to prove a fact remembered or believed. MRE 803(3). In this case, the trial
court admitted the statement under MRE 803(3) to show the complainant’s emotional state and
to explain her reasons for failing to disclose the abuse earlier as explained in the note. The
complainant’s state of mind at the time she disclosed the abuse was not relevant to any issues to
-2-
be determined at trial and thus the trial court erred in admitting the note. However, the statement
was cumulative of other properly admitted evidence, principally the complainant’s trial
testimony, and thus its admission was harmless error. People v Hill, 257 Mich App 126, 140;
667 NW2d 78 (2003); People v Rodriguez (On Remand), 216 Mich App 329, 332; 549 NW2d
359 (1996).
Defendant next contends that the trial court erred in ordering him to reimburse the county
for court-appointed counsel. Because this issue was not raised below, it has not been preserved
for appeal and is thus reviewed for plain error affecting defendant’s substantial rights. People v
Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763-764; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).
Although a trial court is not required to make a specific finding on the record regarding a
defendant’s ability to pay unless the defendant contemporaneously and specifically objects, it
must “provide some indication of consideration, such as noting that it reviewed the financial and
employment sections of the defendant’s presentence investigation report or, even more generally,
a statement that it considered the defendant’s ability to pay.” People v Dunbar, 264 Mich App
240, 254-255; 690 NW2d 476 (2004). In this case, the court assessed attorney fees in the amount
of $400 without any explanation or comment whatsoever. Therefore, defendant has shown a
plain error and we remand to the trial court to “reconsider its reimbursement order in light of
defendant’s current and future financial circumstances.” Id. at 255.
Defendant next argues that he is entitled to have the presentence report corrected to the
extent that it incorrectly states that his convictions arose from a guilty plea. This issue has been
waived because counsel specifically advised the trial court that the presentence report was
“accurate. No omissions, deletions or corrections.” People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 219-220;
612 NW2d 144 (2000).
Defendant alternatively argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue at
sentencing. Because defendant failed to raise this claim below in a motion for a new trial or an
evidentiary hearing, review is limited to the existing record. People v Snider, 239 Mich App
393, 423; 608 NW2d 502 (2000). The general rule is that effective assistance of counsel is
presumed and the defendant bears a heavy burden of proving otherwise. People v Eloby (After
Remand), 215 Mich App 472, 476; 547 NW2d 48 (1996). Relief is not available unless
defendant shows that counsel’s representation was unreasonable and counsel’s error affected the
outcome of the proceedings. People v Watkins, 247 Mich App 14, 30; 634 NW2d 370 (2001).
The presentence report indicates in various places both that defendant was convicted following a
bench trial and that he pleaded guilty. The record plainly shows that he did not plead guilty and
thus counsel erred in failing to object to the inaccuracy. The prosecutor agrees that defendant is
entitled to relief. Thus, on remand the trial court is directed to correct the misstatement in the
presentence report and send a corrected copy to the Department of Corrections. People v
Spanke, 254 Mich App 642, 650; 658 NW2d 504 (2003); People v Martinez (After Remand), 210
Mich App 199, 203; 532 NW2d 863 (1995).
-3-
Defendant’s convictions are affirmed, but we remand for reconsideration of the trial
court’s order requiring defendant to reimburse the county for attorney fees and for correction of
the presentence report in accordance with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Alton T. Davis
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
-4-
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.
