In People v. Costner, the Michigan Court of Appeals strictly interpreted the Michigan Romeo and Juliet law under Michigan SORA, finding that even a small difference beyond the statutory four-year age limit can prevent relief from the Michigan Sex Offender Registry. The defendant was four years and 23 days older than the complainant, making him ineligible for removal. The decision highlights how precise age calculations can significantly affect sex offender registry removal in Michigan and other close-in-age cases.
–
In People v Costner (Docket No. 316806), the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed whether an individual slightly more than four years older than a complainant qualifies for relief under the “Romeo and Juliet” provision of the Michigan Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA).
The decision highlights how strictly Michigan courts interpret statutory language in sex offender registration cases and underscores the significant consequences that can arise from even minor differences in age calculations.
Background of the Case
Mr. Costner pled guilty to attempted third-degree criminal sexual conduct under MCL 750.520d(1)(a). The conviction stemmed from a consensual sexual relationship between an 18-year-old and a 14-year-old. The age difference between the two individuals was four years and twenty-three days.
Although Mr. Costner was initially sentenced under the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act (HYTA), his HYTA status was later revoked due to probation violations. As a result of the revocation, he became subject to mandatory sex offender registration under SORA.
Mr. Costner later petitioned for removal from the Michigan Sex Offender Registry under MCL 28.728c(14), which provides limited relief in so-called “Romeo and Juliet” cases when the defendant is not more than four years older than the complainant.
The Legal Issue
The central issue before the Court was whether being four years and twenty-three days older than the complainant satisfied the statutory requirement that the defendant be “not more than four years older.”
Mr. Costner argued that the age difference should be calculated under principles similar to those used in other age-related contexts. However, the Court focused on the statutory language and how “year” should be measured under Michigan law.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals held that the statutory phrase “not more than four years older” refers to a measurement of time. A year, in its commonly understood meaning, consists of twelve months. Because Mr. Costner exceeded the four-year threshold by twenty-three days, he did not qualify for relief under the statute.
The Court rejected reliance on prior cases involving the “birthday rule” and determined that the Legislature intended a strict temporal calculation rather than a more flexible interpretation.
As a result, the Court affirmed the denial of Mr. Costner’s petition to be removed from the registry.
The Dissenting Opinion
Judge Elizabeth Gleicher dissented. In her view, the statutory definition of a “year” under MCL 8.3j as a calendar year should control the analysis. Under that interpretation, she concluded that Mr. Costner was not more than four calendar years older than the complainant and therefore should have been eligible for relief.
Judge Gleicher further emphasized that the remedial purpose of the Romeo and Juliet provision supports a construction that avoids unnecessarily harsh outcomes in close-in-age cases.
Why This Case Matters
The Costner decision demonstrates how narrowly Michigan courts may interpret statutory language governing sex offender registration. Even minimal deviations from statutory thresholds can determine whether an individual qualifies for removal from the registry.
The ruling also illustrates the importance of precise statutory interpretation in cases involving:
- Close-in-age relationships
- Holmes Youthful Trainee Act status
- Post-conviction petitions for registry removal
- Romeo and Juliet relief provisions
Registry Consequences in Close-in-Age Cases
Cases involving consensual conduct between teenagers often carry consequences that extend far beyond the initial conviction. Once HYTA protection is revoked or unavailable, registration may become mandatory depending on the statutory framework.
Because SORA provisions are strictly applied, small factual distinctions, including age calculations, can have life-altering consequences.
Speak with a Michigan Criminal Sexual Conduct Defense Attorney
Shannon Smith Law represents individuals accused of criminal sexual conduct throughout Michigan, including cases involving close-in-age relationships and potential registry consequences.
Sex offender registration issues often require careful statutory analysis and early legal strategy. Anyone facing charges or seeking relief from registration requirements should seek legal guidance promptly.
If you or a loved one are facing criminal sexual conduct charges, contact Shannon Smith Law to schedule a confidential consultation.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is the Romeo and Juliet provision under Michigan law?
The Romeo and Juliet provision under the Michigan Sex Offenders Registration Act allows certain individuals in close-in-age relationships to seek relief from mandatory sex offender registration. To qualify, the defendant must not be more than four years older than the complainant and must meet other statutory requirements.
2. How did the Michigan Court of Appeals interpret the four-year age difference in People v Costner?
The Court held that the age difference must be calculated as a strict measurement of time. If the defendant is even one day more than four years older than the complainant, they are ineligible for relief under the Romeo and Juliet provision.
3. Does the Romeo and Juliet provision apply automatically?
No. Relief under the Romeo and Juliet provision is not automatic. A defendant must petition the court and demonstrate that they meet all statutory requirements. Courts interpret these requirements strictly.
4. What happens if someone violates Holmes Youthful Trainee Act status?
If a defendant’s Holmes Youthful Trainee Act status is revoked, the individual may lose the protections associated with that status, including the possibility of avoiding sex offender registration. Once revoked, registration may become mandatory depending on the underlying conviction.
5. Why is precise age calculation important in registry cases?
As demonstrated in People v Costner, even a small difference in age calculation can determine whether a person qualifies for removal from the registry. Courts may apply statutory language strictly, making exact age differences critical.
6. Can someone petition for removal from the Michigan Sex Offender Registry?
In certain circumstances, yes. Michigan law provides limited opportunities for removal from the registry, but eligibility depends on the specific offense, age differences, and statutory requirements. Each case requires careful legal analysis.
