PEOPLE OF MI V SCOTT CARL MEZUK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 4, 1997
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 195407
Macomb Circuit Court
LC No. 94-002650-FH
SCOTT CARL MEZUK,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Jansen, P.J., and Doctoroff and Gage, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
After a bench trial, defendant was convicted of assault with intent to commit second-degree
criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520g(2); MSA 28.788(7)(2). He was sentenced to three years’
probation. He now appeals as of right. We affirm.
Defendant first argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress statements he
made to police on the grounds that they were involuntary. When reviewing a trial court’s determination
of the voluntariness of a statement, this Court must examine the entire record and make an independent
determination. People v Haywood, 209 Mich App 217, 225-226; 530 NW2d 497 (1995).
Nevertheless, the trial court’s findings will not be reversed unless they are clearly erroneous. Id. at 226.
In evaluating the admissibility of a defendant’s statement, this Court reviews the totality of the
circumstances surrounding the making of the statement to determine whether it was freely and voluntarily
made. Id. Factors to consider include: the age of the accused; his lack of education or his intelligence
level; the extent of his previous experience with the police; the repeated and prolonged nature of the
questioning; the length of the detention of the accused before he gave the statement in question; the lack
of any advice to the accused of his constitutional rights; whether there was an unnecessary delay in
bringing him before a magistrate before he gave the confession; whether the accused was injured,
intoxicated or drugged, or in ill health when he gave the statement; whether the accused was deprived of
food, sleep, or medical attention; whether the accused was physically abused; and whether the suspect
was threatened with abuse. People v Cipriano, 431 Mich 315, 334; 429 NW2d 781 (1988);
Haywood, supra at 226.
-1
Defendant argues that his statements were involuntary because, at the time he was questioned,
he felt physically ill from a hangover, he had not slept well, and he had not eaten. We disagree. An
independent review of the record in the present case reveals that defendant was allowed to sleep the
night before he was questioned by the police. He did not request food, and declined an offer of coffee.
He was aware of his Miranda rights, and chose to speak to police without his lawyer present. He was
repeatedly reminded that he did not have to make a statement, but he chose to do so because he
wanted to “clear things up.” Defendant was 23 years old and had some college education, and was
considering a career in law enforcement. Under the totality of the circumstances, we find that
defendant’s statements were freely and voluntarily made.
Defendant next argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. When
reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence following a bench trial, this Court must view the evidence in a
light most favorable to the prosecution and determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found
that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Hutner,
209 Mich App 280, 282; 530 NW2d 174 (1995). The elements of assault with intent to commit
second-degree criminal sexual conduct are: an assault, involving the use of force or coercion, with the
specific intent to touch the victim’s genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttock, breast, or clothing covering
those areas, for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification. People v Evans, 173 Mich App 631,
634; 434 NW2d 452 (1988). Circumstantial evidence, and reasonable inferences arising from the
evidence, may constitute satisfactory proof of the elements of the offense. Hutner, supra. Intent may
be inferred from all the facts and circumstances of the case. People v Wolford, 189 Mich App 478,
480; 473 NW2d 767 (1991). This Court may not determine the weight and credibility of the evidence.
People v Herbert, 444 Mich 466, 474; 511 NW2d 654 (1993).
Defendant first argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he had the specific intent
required for conviction of the offense. We disagree. Viewed in a light most favorable to the
prosecution, the evidence indicates that defendant went into the women’s bathroom, grabbed the victim
as she was coming out of the bathroom stall, forced her against the toilet, grabbed and tore her shirt and
bra, and struck her several times. The victim testified that defendant’s pants were around his ankles,
and defendant himself told police that his pants were open when he encountered the victim. A
reasonable trier of fact could have inferred from this evidence that defendant intended to touch the
victim’s genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttock, breast, or clothing covering those areas, for the purpose
of sexual arousal or gratification.
Defendant next argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove specific intent because he was
intoxicated at the time the incident occurred. Voluntary intoxication will negate the specific intent
element of the crime charged if the degree of intoxication is so great as to render the accused incapable
of entertaining the intent. People v King, 210 Mich App 425, 428; 534 NW2d 534 (1995). In the
present case, the evidence indicates that defendant had been drinking on the night of the assault.
Several police witnesses testified that defendant did not appear visibly intoxicated at the time of his
arrest. However, one witness testified that “he appeared to be highly intoxicated, almost to the point
that he was unresponsive, passed out.” When defendant arrived at the Macomb County Jail, Deputy
Blount noticed that defendant smelled of alcohol. Blount asked defendant to take a breathalyzer test,
-2
and defendant consented. He had a blood alcohol level of .10 approximately two hours after the
incident. Defendant did not appear to Blount to be highly intoxicated, and he was able to carry on
conversations and gave responsive answers to Blount’s questions. Blount testified that he did not
believe that a blood alcohol level of .10 reflected a serious level of intoxication. On this record, we find
that defendant was not so intoxicated as to render him i capable of entertaining the intent to commit
n
second-degree criminal sexual conduct.
Finally, defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because the
only evidence against him was the victim’s testimony, which was inherently incredible. However, when
reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence, this Court may not determine the weight and credibility of the
evidence. Herbert, supra at 474. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient from which a rational trier of
fact could have determined that the elements of assault with intent to commit second-degree criminal
sexual conduct were established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Affirmed.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
-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.
