The Michigan Court of Appeals has upheld the convictions and lengthy prison sentences of Aaron Trout in the July 2022 death of 2-year-old Jayde McDonnell, a case that involved evidence presented at MyMichigan Medical Center in Alpena.
In an opinion released Friday, the appeals court affirmed Trout’s convictions for second-degree murder and first-degree child abuse, as well as the sentences imposed by Alcona County Circuit Court Judge Laura Frawley. Trout had appealed both the verdicts and the punishment.
McDonnell was the child of Trout’s then-girlfriend, Adrienne Pavelka. A jury convicted Trout in January 2024. Frawley sentenced him to 55 to 90 years in prison for second-degree murder and 30 to 60 years for first-degree child abuse.
Pavelka pleaded guilty separately to first-degree child abuse and received a sentence of 15 to 40 years in prison, according to the court case report.
Appeal focused on hospital statements
One of Trout’s primary arguments concerned hearsay evidence. He challenged the trial court’s decision to allow a hospital technician to testify about statements Pavelka made shortly after entering MyMichigan Medical Center in Alpena while holding McDonnell’s lifeless body.
Ordinarily, hearsay—an out-of-court statement offered as evidence—may not be admitted. The appeals court considered whether Pavelka’s statements qualified for the “excited utterance” exception, which can allow testimony about what someone said when a startling event left that person under stress or shock and without the capacity to fabricate.
Trout argued the statements could have been fabricated because three days had passed between the child’s blunt-force injuries and the arrival at the hospital. The Court of Appeals rejected that argument, finding that prosecutors had adequately met the requirements for the exception.
The opinion described Pavelka’s condition at the hospital as the culmination of the events over those three days, rather than a reaction to an isolated incident. The court concluded that the circumstances supported an inference that her statements were made during a continuing state of emotional shock.
“One can easily conclude those traumatic events were not isolated incidents allowing for ‘the possibility for conscious reflection’ thereafter, but rather were a series of related happenings built on top of each other.”
The appeals court also disagreed that admitting the statements was an abuse of discretion requiring a new trial or reversal of Trout’s convictions.
Court rejects juror and sentencing challenges
Trout separately challenged two interactions between a juror and members of the public during the trial. He argued that the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing and that his trial attorney provided ineffective assistance by failing to seek a mistrial or request such a hearing.
He faulted his attorney for not questioning the three people involved, requesting an evidentiary hearing or asking other jurors about the interactions. The appeals court said Trout did not explain what additional questions should have been asked or why the trial court’s questioning was inadequate.
After reviewing the trial court’s questioning, the Court of Appeals found no substantial possibility that outside influences affected the jury’s verdict.
The court also upheld the sentences, which were above the advisory sentencing guidelines. The guidelines called for 22.5 to 37.5 years for second-degree murder and 14.25 to 23.75 years for first-degree child abuse.
The court said the sentences were reasonable and proportionate to the seriousness of the offenses and the offender. Although sentencing guidelines are advisory, judges must consult them and consider them as an important factor in exercising sentencing discretion. The appeals court concluded that Frawley had done so and had determined that sentences above the guidelines were more proportionate than sentences within the guideline ranges.
Trout argued that the trial court effectively imposed a sentence intended to produce life without parole, which was not available because the jury convicted him of second-degree rather than first-degree murder. He pointed to his expected age—86—when he would first become eligible for parole.
The appeals court rejected that contention, noting that Trout received a term-of-years sentence and that his age at possible parole eligibility was not enough to overcome the presumption that the sentences were proportionate. The ruling leaves his convictions and sentences in place.