Case Title: PEOPLE OF MI V ANGEL LUIS PEREZ SR

Citation: 

Docket Number: 123748

State: michigan

Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Date: 2003-11-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
____________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_______________________________ 
 
 
                                                 
Michigan Supreme Court 
Lansing, Michigan 48909 
Chief Justice 
Justices 
Maura D. Corrigan 
Michael F. Cavanagh 
Elizabeth A. Weaver 
Marilyn Kelly 
Clifford W. Taylor 
Robert P. Young, Jr. 
Opinion 
Stephen J. Markman 
FILED NOVEMBER 4, 2003 
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 
Plaintiff-Appellee, 
v 
No. 123748 
ANGEL LUIS PEREZ, SR., 
Defendant-Appellant. 
PER CURIAM 
Defendant appealed his conviction for criminal sexual 
conduct in the second degree, alleging that the circuit 
court should have given the missing-witness instruction, 
CJI2d 5.12.1
 The Court of Appeals properly affirmed 
defendant’s 
conviction. 
In 
doing 
so, 
however, 
it 
1 The jury instruction states that “______ is a missing
witness whose appearance was the responsibility of the
prosecution. 
You may infer that this witness’s testimony
would have been unfavorable to the prosecution’s case.” 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
incorrectly stated that this jury instruction never needs 
to be given. We write to correct that misstatement. 
I. BACKGROUND 
Defendant was arrested in 1997 and charged with four 
counts 
of 
first-degree 
criminal 
sexual 
conduct, 
MCL 
750.520b. 
A jury subsequently found him guilty of four 
counts of a lesser offense, second-degree criminal sexual 
conduct, MCL 750.520c, but the Court of Appeals reversed 
these convictions and remanded for a new trial.2 
Following the remand to the circuit court, the 
prosecuting attorney prepared to try defendant on four 
counts of the reduced offense. The prosecutor obtained the 
trial court’s consent to add Dr. Eledwina Dy as a witness 
and to call her to testify at trial. 
Dr. Dy had examined 
the thirteen-year-old victim and would testify that she 
found evidence of sexual penetration. 
The trial date was adjourned once because Dr. Dy was 
in the Philippines and unavailable to testify. 
As the 
rescheduled date approached, the prosecutor confirmed that 
Dr. Dy was still out of the country. 
The prosecutor told 
defendant this before trial and stated that he did not 
2 Unpublished opinion per curiam, issued February 18,
2000 (Docket No. 214190). 
2  
 
 
   
 
 
 
intend 
to 
request 
a 
second 
adjournment. 
Likewise, 
defendant did not request an adjournment. 
As a result, the trial proceeded without Dr. Dy’s 
testimony. 
Before the case was submitted to the jury, 
defendant asked the trial court to read CJI2d 5.12, which 
would instruct the jury that the prosecutor was responsible 
for securing Dr. Dy’s appearance and that it could infer 
that her testimony would be adverse to the prosecution’s 
case. 
The trial court denied this request. 
Defendant was 
subsequently convicted by the jury of one count of CSC-II, 
and acquitted on the other three counts. 
On appeal, defendant argued, inter alia, that the 
trial court erred in denying his request for the missing­
witness instruction. 
The Court of Appeals rejected this 
argument.3  It pointed out that defendant failed to address 
how the prosecutor could have forced the witness to return 
to the United States from a foreign country and also noted 
that it did not appear that the witness would have offered 
testimony helpful to defendant. 
255 Mich App 707. 
Further, the Court of Appeals added that, in light of the 
1986 amendments of MCL 767.40a and this Court’s opinion in 
People v Burwick, 450 Mich 281; 537 NW2d 813 (1995), it did 
3  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
 
“not believe that CJI2d 5.12 remains a viable instruction.” 
255 Mich App 708. 
For these reasons, the Court concluded 
that the trial court did not err in declining to give the 
missing-witness instruction. 
Defendant now seeks leave to appeal to this Court. 
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 
Questions 
of 
law, 
including 
questions 
of 
the 
applicability of jury instructions, are reviewed de novo. 
People v Gonzalez, 468 Mich 636, 641; 664 NW2d 159 (2003). 
III. ANALYSIS 
The 
1986 
amendments 
of 
MCL 
767.40a 
altered 
a 
prosecutor’s duty to produce witnesses at trial. Before 
1986, the statute plainly imposed on a prosecutor the duty 
to list all res gestae witnesses on the information and to 
produce them at trial. People v Koonce, 466 Mich 515, 520; 
648 NW2d 153 (2002). 
When the prosecutor did not satisfy 
this statutory obligation, the missing-witness instruction 
was available to address the situation. 
The Legislature amended the statute in 1986.4  With the 
amendments, the Legislature replaced the prosecutor’s duty 
3 255 Mich App 703; 662 NW2d 446 (2003).  
4 As amended in 1986, MCL 767.40a states:  
4  
 
 
   
 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(1) 
The prosecuting attorney shall attach
to the filed information a list of all witnesses 
known to the prosecuting attorney who might be
called at trial and all res gestae witnesses
known 
to 
the 
prosecuting 
attorney 
or 
investigating law enforcement officers. 
(2) The prosecuting attorney shall be under
a continuing duty to disclose the names of any
further res gestae witnesses as they become 
known. 
(3) Not less than 30 days before trial, the
prosecuting attorney shall send to the defendant
or his or her attorney a list of the witnesses
the prosecuting attorney intends to produce at
trial. 
(4) 
The prosecuting attorney may add or
delete from the list of witnesses he or she 
intends to call at trial any time upon leave of
the court and for good cause shown or by
stipulation of the parties. 
(5) 
The 
prosecuting 
attorney 
or 
investigative 
law 
enforcement 
agency 
shall 
provide to the defendant, or defense counsel,
upon request, reasonable assistance, including 
investigative assistance, as may be necessary to
locate and serve process upon a witness. 
The 
request for assistance shall be made in writing
by defendant or defense counsel not less than 10
days before the trial of the case or at such
other time as the court directs. 
If the 
prosecuting attorney objects to a request by the
defendant on the grounds that it is unreasonable,
the prosecuting attorney shall file a pretrial
motion before the court to hold a hearing to
determine the reasonableness of the request. 
(6) 
Any party may within the discretion of
the court impeach or cross-examine any witnesses
as though the witness had been called by another
party. 
5  
 
 
                                                 
to produce res gestae witnesses with “an obligation to 
provide notice of known witnesses and reasonable assistance 
to locate witnesses on defendant’s request.” 
Burwick, 450 
Mich 289. As we summarized in Burwick: 
The Legislature has thus eliminated the 
prosecutor’s 
burden 
to 
locate, 
endorse, 
and 
produce unknown persons who might be res gestae
witnesses and has addressed defense concerns to 
require the prosecution to give initial and 
continuing 
notice 
of 
all 
known 
res 
gestae
witnesses, 
identify 
witnesses 
the 
prosecutor
intends to produce, and provide law enforcement
assistance to investigate and produce witnesses
the defense requests. [Id. (emphasis added).] 
This change in the scope of the prosecutor’s duty to 
produce witnesses at trial gave rise to questions about the 
continued viability of CJI2d 5.12.5
 The Court of Appeals 
examined the amended statute and our analysis of that 
statute in Burwick, and concluded that CJI2d 5.12 had 
outlived its usefulness. 255 Mich App 708. 
While we agree with the Court of Appeals that the 
trial court did not err in rejecting defendant’s request 
for CJI2d 5.12 in this case, we do not agree with the 
Court’s 
broader 
conclusion 
that 
there 
remains 
“no 
justification” for such an instruction. 
255 Mich App 710. 
5 For example, the “Use Note” following CJI2d 5.12
notes that it “is unclear what impact the 1986 amendments
to the res gestae rule will have on this instruction.” 
6  
   
 
 
Nothing 
in 
MCL 
767.40a 
or 
Burwick 
forecloses 
the 
possibility of a situation arising in which it would be 
appropriate to read this instruction. 
For example, MCL 767.40a(4) permits a prosecutor to 
add or delete from the list of trial witnesses only “upon 
leave of the court and for good cause shown or by 
stipulation of the parties.” 
Accordingly, CJI2d 5.12 may 
be appropriate if a prosecutor fails to secure the presence 
at trial of a listed witness who has not been properly 
excused. 
Likewise, MCL 767.40a(5) requires the prosecutor 
to 
provide 
the 
defendant, 
upon 
request, 
“reasonable 
assistance, including investigative assistance, as may be 
necessary to locate and serve process upon a witness.” 
Accordingly, if a prosecutor falls short of providing such 
assistance, it might be appropriate to instruct a jury that 
the missing witness would have been unfavorable to the 
prosecution. There may be other occasions that warrant the 
jury instruction; in every instance, the propriety of 
reading CJI2d 5.12 will depend on the specific facts of 
that case. 
IV. CONCLUSION 
For this reason, we affirm that part of the Court of 
Appeals opinion holding that the trial court did not err in 
omitting CJI2d 5.12, but vacate that part of the opinion 
7  
 
 
  
 
holding that there is no justification for the continued 
viability of this jury instruction. In all other respects, 
leave to appeal is denied. MCR 7.302(G)(1). 
Maura D. Corrigan
Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 
Marilyn Kelly
Clifford W. Taylor
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman 
8