Until There's A Guilty Verdict, It's Still An 'Alleged' Victim

(Source: MIRS.news, Published 05/19/2025) A state appeals judge believes Michigan's legal system needs to address whether referring to complainants as "victims" is appropriate.

Court of Appeals Judge Brock Swartzle's comment came in a panel's published opinion affirming the criminal sexual conduct (CSC) convictions of Moses Ralph Aikens, who alleged the prosecution's use of the word "victim" for his teen accuser was prejudicial and warranted a new trial.

"For far too long, Michigan judges have permitted a prosecutor to beg the question before the jury whether a complainant in a sexual-assault case is, in fact, a victim of such an assault," Swartzle wrote, noting it occurs when the prosecutor refers to the complainant as a "victim" without using "alleged."

Michigan's Hall of Justice - home to the Michigan Court of Appeals

Swartzle added: "The practice of referring to the complainant as the 'victim' when the actus reus is before the jury is illogical, unnecessary and prejudicial – any one of which would counsel against the practice, but all three of which compel its bar."

Although Swartzle agreed the prosecutor's use of "victim" didn't warrant reversing the conviction, he called on the Michigan Supreme Court "to rectify this jurisprudential error in an appropriate case" and if not, then a conflict panel should be convened.

The three-judge panel affirmed Aikens' fourth-degree CSC convictions, which arose from the July 2018 assault of a 16-year-old girl.

Aikens' convictions were previously overturned by an appeals panel, and during his second trial, the prosecutor repeatedly referred to the teen as the "victim," which the defense did not object to.

In the current appeal, the panel held that in the context of the trial, "during which it was clear that the prosecutor sought conviction on the basis of (the 16-year-old) being a victim, the prosecutor's statements did not constitute plain error requiring reversal."

The panel, including Judges Michael J. Kelly and Matthew S. Ackerman, also rejected Aikens' argument that the prosecutor failed to present sufficient evidence to support guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.