News

Appellate court upholds 2008 CSC conviction

By GARY RIDLEY, Argus-Press Staff Writer

Monday, February 8, 2010 10:09 AM EST

TROY - The Michigan Court of Appeals has upheld a 2008 third-degree criminal sexual conduct conviction against an area man convicted of raping his brother's girlfriend.

Steven Loy Lockwood was convicted in 2008 in 35th Circuit Court and sentenced to four years, three months to 15 years in prison for the rape.

In his appeal, Lockwood made numerous assertions that his original trial was unfair, however, the Court of Appeals denied each of his arguments.

The Court denied Lockwood's claim that the prosecution violated his constitutional rights by suppressing evidence it was legally required to disclose.

Lockwood contended his and the victim's clothing from the time of the incident, which was later collected by the police, should have been turned over to the defense as evidence. He also contended police had an obligation to submit the clothing for DNA testing.

The court disagreed.

“While exculpatory evidence needs to be disclosed, the duty does not extend to seeking out and finding exculpatory evidence,” the Court of Appeals stated in its ruling. “Therefore, any aspect of (the) defendant's argument requiring the police to have performed DNA testing fails.”

The ruling also concluded Lockwood was aware the police confiscated his clothing and it was his responsibility to request the use of the items as evidence.

“(The) defendant knew that the police confiscated his clothes,” the ruling stated. “Yet, there is nothing in the record to show the defendant requested the evidence, nor that the exercise of reasonable diligence would have been unsuccessful in obtaining the clothes.”

Moreover, Lockwood's claim that the lack of DNA evidence on the clothing would have supported his defense was denied by the court.

Court records show that Kathy Fox, from the Michigan State Police Crime Lab, testified that when she examined the components of the “rape kit,” she found no biological evidence whatsoever.

The prosecution contended the victim was able to get away from the defendant before any DNA evidence could be transferred, and therefore Lockwood's claim of an absence of DNA would not have exonerated him.

“The jury was already working with the premise that there was no DNA or other biological evidence to be found,” the Court ruled. “Thus, having clothes introduced with no biological evidence would not have affected that premise.”

On other points, the Court also denied Lockwood's claims that the trial judge abused his discretion in allowing the prosecution to amend the witness list before trial, that the victim's testimony recounting a statement allegedly made by the defendant was inadmissible hearsay, that his counsel was ineffective, and that the trial judge's refusal to issue a continuance violated his constitutional rights.

Comment on this Story

Name:

Email: (optional)

Comments:

Image Verification: (Case sensitive)