By Alethia Kasben
Gongwer News Service
A prior conviction should not be a requirement to admit evidence of prior sexual abuse in certain sexual conduct cases, a unanimous Michigan Supreme Court ruled Monday.
In an opinion Monday, the court vacated a portion of the framework created by the Court of Appeals in People v. Morse.
In that case, the court developed the framework for admitting evidence of alleged prior sexual abuse by a third party, otherwise excluded by the rape-shield statute, to provide an alternative explanation for a complainant's age-inappropriate sexual knowledge in light of a defendant's constitutional right to confrontation and right to present a defense.
The court determined that one piece of the evidentiary standard required was that the sexual abuse in question led to a conviction.
In People v. Masi (MSC Docket No. 165620), a unanimous Supreme Court disagreed.
The court, in an opinion written by Justice Kyra Harris Bolden, disagreed that a conviction was necessary.
Bolden wrote the conviction requirement is overly burdensome and "a prior conviction should not be the determining factor for admitting evidence of conduct otherwise barred by the rape-shield statute."
The court held that once a sufficient offer of proof is made by a defendant, a trial court must hold an in-camera hearing to determine whether the defendant is constitutionally entitled to present particular evidence that is otherwise excluded under the rape-shield statute.
As part of that hearing, the court must determine whether the defendant has shown that the prior act occurred, the act closely resembled those at issue, the act is relevant to a material issue, the evidence is necessary to the defendant's case, and the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect.
"We believe that this test provides the appropriate balance between protecting a defendant's right to confrontation and right to present a defense and protecting the interests of minors who are subjected to this sensitive examination," Bolden wrote. "While evidence of prior sexual conduct is generally prohibited, there are circumstances in which a minor's sexual knowledge is so probative that the defendant's right to confrontation or right to present a defense hinges on explaining why that knowledge exists."
Justice Noah Hood did not participate in the case, as it was heard before he was on the bench. Hood was also on the Morse Court of Appeals panel.
Gongwer News Service
A prior conviction should not be a requirement to admit evidence of prior sexual abuse in certain sexual conduct cases, a unanimous Michigan Supreme Court ruled Monday.
In an opinion Monday, the court vacated a portion of the framework created by the Court of Appeals in People v. Morse.
In that case, the court developed the framework for admitting evidence of alleged prior sexual abuse by a third party, otherwise excluded by the rape-shield statute, to provide an alternative explanation for a complainant's age-inappropriate sexual knowledge in light of a defendant's constitutional right to confrontation and right to present a defense.
The court determined that one piece of the evidentiary standard required was that the sexual abuse in question led to a conviction.
In People v. Masi (MSC Docket No. 165620), a unanimous Supreme Court disagreed.
The court, in an opinion written by Justice Kyra Harris Bolden, disagreed that a conviction was necessary.
Bolden wrote the conviction requirement is overly burdensome and "a prior conviction should not be the determining factor for admitting evidence of conduct otherwise barred by the rape-shield statute."
The court held that once a sufficient offer of proof is made by a defendant, a trial court must hold an in-camera hearing to determine whether the defendant is constitutionally entitled to present particular evidence that is otherwise excluded under the rape-shield statute.
As part of that hearing, the court must determine whether the defendant has shown that the prior act occurred, the act closely resembled those at issue, the act is relevant to a material issue, the evidence is necessary to the defendant's case, and the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect.
"We believe that this test provides the appropriate balance between protecting a defendant's right to confrontation and right to present a defense and protecting the interests of minors who are subjected to this sensitive examination," Bolden wrote. "While evidence of prior sexual conduct is generally prohibited, there are circumstances in which a minor's sexual knowledge is so probative that the defendant's right to confrontation or right to present a defense hinges on explaining why that knowledge exists."
Justice Noah Hood did not participate in the case, as it was heard before he was on the bench. Hood was also on the Morse Court of Appeals panel.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
