Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk
Reload this Page >

Adultery could mean life in prison: MI judge

Other Talk "Otterville"

Adultery could mean life in prison: MI judge

Old 01-17-07, 10:21 AM
  #1  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Nick Danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 25,519
Received 278 Likes on 206 Posts
Adultery could mean life in prison: MI judge

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...n/16479631.htm

Adultery could mean life, Michigan court finds

By Brian Dickerson

Detroit Free Press

(MCT)

DETROIT - In a ruling sure to make philandering spouses squirm, Michigan's second-highest court says that anyone involved in an extramarital fling can be prosecuted for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by up to life in prison.

"We cannot help but question whether the Legislature actually intended the result we reach here today," Judge William Murphy wrote in November for a unanimous Court of Appeals panel, "but we are curtailed by the language of the statute from reaching any other conclusion."

"Technically," he added, "any time a person engages in sexual penetration in an adulterous relationship, he or she is guilty of CSC I," the most serious sexual assault charge in Michigan's criminal code.

No one expects prosecutors to declare open season on cheating spouses. The ruling is especially awkward for Attorney General Mike Cox, whose office triggered it by successfully appealing a lower court's decision to drop CSC charges against a Charlevoix defendant. In November 2005, Cox confessed to an adulterous relationship.

Murphy's opinion received little notice when it was handed down. But it has since elicited reactions ranging from disbelief to mischievous giggling in Michigan's gossipy legal community.

The ruling grows out of a case in which a Charlevoix man accused of trading Oxycontin pills for the sexual favors of a cocktail waitress was charged under an obscure provision of Michigan's criminal law. The provision decrees that a person is guilty of first-degree criminal sexual conduct whenever "sexual penetration occurs under circumstances involving the commission of any other felony."

Charlevoix Circuit Judge Richard Pajtas sentenced Lloyd Waltonen to up to four years in prison after he pleaded guilty to two felony counts of delivering a controlled substance. But Pajtas threw out the sexual assault charge against Waltonen, citing the cocktail waitress's testimony that she had willingly consented to the sex-for-drugs arrangement.

Charlevoix prosecuting attorney John Jarema said he decided to appeal after police discovered evidence that Waltonen may have struck drugs-for-sex deals with several other women.

Cox's office, which handled the appeal on the prosecutor's behalf, insisted that the waitress's consent was irrelevant. All that mattered, the attorney general argued in a brief demanding that the charge be reinstated, was that the pair had sex "under circumstances involving the commission of another felony" - the delivery of the Oxycontin pills.

The Attorney General's Office got a whole lot more than it bargained for. The Court of Appeals agreed that the prosecutor in Waltonen's case needed only to prove that the Oxycontin delivery and the consensual sex were related. But Murphy and his colleagues went further, ruling that a first-degree CSC charge could be justified when consensual sex occurred in conjunction with any felony, not just a drug sale.

The judges said they recognized their ruling could have sweeping consequences, "considering the voluminous number of felonious acts that can be found in the penal code." Among the many crimes Michigan still recognizes as felonies, they noted pointedly, is adultery - although the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan notes that no one has been convicted of that offense since 1971.

Some judges and lawyers suggested that the Court of Appeals' reference to prosecuting adulterers was a sly slap at Cox, noting that it was his office that pressed for the expansive definition of criminal sexual conduct the appellate judges so reluctantly embraced in their Nov. 7 ruling.

Murphy didn't return calls Friday. But Chief Court of Appeals Judge William Whitbeck, who signed the opinion along with Murphy and Judge Michael Smolenski, said that Cox's confessed adultery never came up during their discussions of the case.

"I never thought of it, and I'm confident that it was not something Judge Murphy or Judge Smolenski had in mind," Whitbeck said. But he chuckled uncomfortably when asked if the hypothetical described in Murphy's opinion couldn't be cited as justification for bringing first-degree criminal sexual conduct charges against the attorney general.

"Well, yeah," he said.

Cox's spokesman, Rusty Hills, bristled at the suggestion that Cox or anyone else in his circumstances could face prosecution.

"To even ask about this borders on the nutty," Hills said in a phone interview Saturday. "Nobody connects the attorney general with this - N-O-B-O-D-Y - and anybody who thinks otherwise is hallucinogenic."


Hills said Sunday that Cox did not want to comment.

The Court of Appeals opinion could also be interpreted as a tweak to the state Supreme Court, which has decreed that judges must enforce statutory language adopted by the Legislature literally, whatever the consequences.

In many other states, judges may reject a literal interpretation of the law if they believe it would lead to an absurd result. But Michigan's Supreme Court majority has held that it is for the Legislature, not the courts, to decide when the absurdity threshold has been breached.

Whitbeck noted that Murphy's opinion questions whether state lawmakers really meant to authorize the prosecution of adulterers for consensual relationships.

"We encourage the Legislature to take a second look at the statutory language if they are troubled by our ruling," he wrote.

Hills declined to say whether the Attorney General's Office would press for legislative amendments to make it clear that only violent felonies involving an unwilling victim could trigger a first-degree CSC charge.

"This is so bizarre that it doesn't even merit a response," he said.

Meanwhile, Waltonen has asked the state Supreme Court for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals ruling. He still hasn't been tried on the criminal sexual conduct charge. His attorney said a CSC conviction could add dozens of years to Waltonen's current prison sentence.

Justices will decide later this year whether to review the Court of Appeals' decision to reinstate the CSC charge.

---

The appeals court decision is available at http://courtofappeals.mijud.net/resources/opinions.htm. Search for Docket No. 270229.

-----------------------

So, under Michigan law, the Attorney General is a felony sex offender. Woo hoo!
Old 01-17-07, 10:23 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Minor Threat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 13,760
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Old 01-17-07, 10:28 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,193
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
and this is in a blue state, imagine if it was texas
Old 01-17-07, 10:31 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: On the banks of the Red Cedar
Posts: 9,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Ahh yes, the Cox Block Ruling.

I love this state!
Old 01-17-07, 10:32 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: North Perry Village, OH
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's about time! Maybe the straight world will be more accountable to that "sanctity of marriage" BS that spews out whenver gay folks say they want to marry.

Old 01-17-07, 10:36 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Kittydreamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 13,605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Minor Threat
Old 01-17-07, 10:37 AM
  #7  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,189
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by jon-w9
Ahh yes, the Cox Block Ruling.
Old 01-17-07, 10:42 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 124,732
Received 88 Likes on 67 Posts
If Cox wants to go to these lengths to prosecute the inane War on Drugs, he should be prosecuted for his illegal conduct.
Old 01-17-07, 11:04 AM
  #9  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Mrs. Danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: With Nick Danger
Posts: 18,539
Likes: 0
Received 229 Likes on 133 Posts
What I urgently need to know is, does Polyamory count as Adultery?
Old 01-17-07, 11:13 AM
  #10  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 2,295
Received 9 Likes on 8 Posts
Originally Posted by Nick Danger

Among the many crimes Michigan still recognizes as felonies, they noted pointedly, is adultery - although the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan notes that no one has been convicted of that offense since 1971.
That's not a typo that should read 1871?
Old 01-17-07, 11:54 AM
  #11  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,193
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Mrs. Danger
What I urgently need to know is, does Polyamory count as Adultery?

no, you can fuck all the women you want at the same time as long as you don't marry any of them
Old 01-17-07, 12:05 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Lompoc, CA
Posts: 11,536
Received 9 Likes on 9 Posts
I'm all for this. And for making childbirth mandatory, stiking down the marriages of any couple who hasn't bred for say, five years.

Welcome to the sacred holy bond of one man and one woman. Protect the institution? You asked for it, you got it.
Old 01-17-07, 04:09 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Mrs. Danger's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: With Nick Danger
Posts: 18,539
Likes: 0
Received 229 Likes on 133 Posts
So long as they don't mess with plain old fornication.
Old 01-17-07, 04:49 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Cusm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 7,582
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by debbert
It's about time! Maybe the straight world will be more accountable to that "sanctity of marriage" BS that spews out whenver gay folks say they want to marry.


I agree. As a married straight man, I feel the entire world should have a chance to <s>suffer</s> enjoy life as I do in the rollercoaster that is matrimony.
Old 01-17-07, 04:53 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 12,306
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by al_bundy
and this is in a blue state, imagine if it was texas
Filmed In Dallas

Old 01-17-07, 04:58 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 53,733
Received 143 Likes on 106 Posts
At least in prison, this crazy law won't apply. You can have all the "bitches" you want, bro.
Old 01-18-07, 06:28 AM
  #17  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Living Room on the Couch
Posts: 4,935
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Adultry could mean life in prison? Sounds more like marriage
Old 01-18-07, 01:34 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: NYC
Posts: 17,016
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The guy's no saint, but putting him in prison for life just to send a message to the legislature about the wording of the law is worse.
Old 01-18-07, 06:22 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Next stop, Earth.
Posts: 3,262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Consensual sex between adults is in no way shape or form any of the governments business, period.

The oxy is a different story. That stuff is bad news.
Old 01-18-07, 06:30 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
filmerp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Playa del Rey, CA
Posts: 2,987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Breakfast with Girls
The guy's no saint, but putting him in prison for life just to send a message to the legislature about the wording of the law is worse.
State prosecutors are notorious for imprisoning citizens on the basis of the 'wording' of laws, rather than common sense. Exhibit A: drug laws.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.