Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 16, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 126509 & (50) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman,
Justices v SC: 126509 COA: 244553 Shiawassee CC: 02-007574-FC RICKY ALLEN PARKS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

By order of June 22, 2007, we remande d this case to the Shiawassee Circuit Court for an evidentiary he aring and directed the trial court to determine if there was any
evidence that the co mplainant made a prior false accu sation of sexual abuse against another person. On order of the Court, the evidentiary heari ng having been held and the Shiawassee Circuit Court’s finding and accomp anying transcript of the hearing having been received, we again consider the applica tion for leave to app eal the May 18, 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeals. We di rect the Clerk to schedu le oral argument on whether to grant th e application or take other peremptory action. MCR 7.302(G)(1). The parties shall file supplemental br iefs within 56 days of the appointment or procurement of counsel by the defendant, and th e parties shall include amon g the issues addressed: (1) whether the evidence of prior accusations of sexual a buse made by the complainant against another person that was revealed during the evid entiary hearing on remand is
admissible under the Mich igan Rules of Evidence; (2) wheth er the truth or falsity of those accusations makes a difference in assessing th eir admissibility, give n the young age of the complainant at th e time of trial; (3) whether th e circuit court’s ruling at the defendant’s trial prohibiting th e further discovery and intr oduction of this evidence constituted reversible error; (4) whether such evidence is subject to the rape shield statute, MCL 750.520j; (5) wh ether the sexual abuse of a young child c onstitutes “the victim’s past sexual conduct” within the m eaning of MCL 750.520j (a); and (6) whether
the defendant in this case must be allowed to intr oduce the evidence of the complainant’s prior accusations of sexual a buse in order to preserve his constitutional right of
confrontation and to present a defense.

We further ORDER the Shiawassee Circuit Court, in accordance with Administrative Order 2003-03, to determine whether the defendant is indigent and, if so,2

to appoint the State Appellate Defender Office to represent th e defendant in this Court.

The Criminal Defense A ttorneys of Michigan and the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups
interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

C ORRIGAN , J., concurs and states as follows:

I join the order scheduling this case for oral argument. I write separately because I question the manner in which this Court fram es the issues for ar gument. The order (1) injects a new issue that defendant has nev er raised in the prior history of this case and (2) overlooks the key issue arising from th is Court’s earlier remand of this case.

A jury found defendant guilty of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520b(1)(a), arising out of the sexual a buse of his nine-year-old stepdaughter. On appeal, defendant conte nded that the trial co urt erred by excluding evidence that the victim had made prior false accusations of sexual abuse against another person. The Court of Appeals rejected d efendant’s argument b ecause defendant had “failed to offer any concrete evid ence” of a prior false accusation. 1 This Court remanded
the case to the trial court for “an evidentiary hearing, affording the defendant the opportunity to offer pr oof that the complainant made a prior false accusation of sexual abuse against another person.” 2

On remand, the trial court held hearings an d reviewed the evidence presented. At the conclusion of the hearings, the court found no evidence th at the victim had made a prior false accusation of sexual abuse against a nother person.

This Court’s order now directs the clerk to schedule oral argument on the application. The order identifie s issues that the parties “sha ll” address. Notably absent from those mandatory issues is one related to the very question for which we required an evidentiary hearing on remand to the trial court: whether the victim made a prior false accusation of sexual abuse against another pers on. The order does not ask the parties to address whether the trial court clearly erred when it found no eviden ce of a prior false
accusation.

1 People v Parks , unpublis hed opinion per curiam, issued May 18, 2004 (Docket No. 244553), p 3.

2 478 Mich 910 (2007)._______________________________________ __ 3

Instead, the Court’s order mandates argument on issues that the parties themselves have never advanced. For exampl e, the order asks whether the truth or falsity of the prior accusation affects its admissibility, whether the prior sexual abuse (implicitly assuming its truth) would constitute “the victim’s past sexual conduct” under the rape-shield statute, MCL 750.520j(1)(a), an d whether defendant must be allowed to present such evidence to preserve his constitu tional rights of confrontation and to present a defense.

It appears that defendant has never argue d on appeal that the prior accusation of
sexual abuse was true and that he must be allowed to present such evidence. On the contrary, defendant’s contention on appeal has always been th at the victim made a prior false accusation of sexual abuse.

Accordingly, this Court’s framing of th e issues for argumen t is quite unusual given that (1) this Court has already remanded for an ev identiary heari ng regarding whether the prior accusation was false and (2) this Court now invents a new theory that the prior accusation may be admissible because it is true . If the evidence is admissible
because it is true , then the purpose of our previous remand for an evid entiary hearing to
determine whether the accusation was false is not readily apparent.

In any event, I would invite the parties and the amici curiae to address (1) whether the issues now raised by this Court’s orde r are properly before this Court, (2) the appropriate standard fo r reviewing those issues, if any, and (3) whether it is appropriate to grant relief on those issues. Further, I would suggest th at the parties and the amici curiae may also wish to add ress the issue resulting from our remanding this case to the trial court, which this Court’ s order now overlooks: whether the trial court clearly erred
when it found no evidence that the victim made a prior false accusation of sexual abuse against another person.

W EAVER , J., joins the statement of C ORRIGAN , J.

t0513 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 16, 2008

Clerk