COA 369338 PEOPLE OF MI V DAVID JOSEPH ROHM Opinion - Authored - Published 11/14/2025

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
-1-
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
FOR PUBLICATION
November 14, 2025
9:14 AM
v No. 369338
Otsego Circuit Court
DAVID JOSEPH ROHM, LC No. 2023-006494-FC
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: GADOLA, C.J., and BOONSTRA and SWARTZLE, JJ.
SWARTZLE, J. (concurring).
I obviously concur in the majority opinion that I authored. I write separately to reiterate
my jeremiad against the use of the term “victim” to refer to a complainant in a case like this one,
in open court before the jury, prior to any finding of guilt. People v Aikens, ___ Mich App ___,
___; ___ NW3d ___ (2025) (SWARTZLE, J, concurring). Here, the prejudicial effect of the term’s
usage was dampened by the trial court’s instruction during voir dire that the jurors should
understand that the term “victim” actually meant “alleged victim,” at least before the jury decided
whom to believe after the close of proofs.
/s/ Brock A. Swartzle

-- 1 of 1 --