Opinion ID: 848976
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Extent of the Error

Text: There was a statutory error in this case that was preserved by objection. It must be evaluated under the standard for preserved, nonconstitutional error announced in People v. Lukity, 460 Mich. 484, 495-496, 596 N.W.2d 607 (1999). Under Lukity, the error is presumed not to be a ground for reversal unless it affirmatively appears that, more probably than not, it was outcome determinative. As was explained in People v. Elston, [10] [a]n error is deemed to have been `outcome determinative' if it undermined the reliability of the verdict. That determination requires that we focus on the nature of the error in light of the weight and strength of the untainted evidence. Id. at 766, 614 N.W.2d 595. The evidence of defendant's guilt presented a close question. There were no third-party eyewitnesses, no medical findings, and no confession. The complainant initially named someone other than defendant as the person who had sexually abused her. Under the circumstances, if there were an error closely linked with the complainant's believability, it had a high probability of influencing the verdict. The trial judge instructed the jury that he had decided to remove defendant from the courtroom. While the instruction made clear that defendant's absence was not voluntary, the court did not attempt to explain why the decision had been made or to allay jury speculation about it. Not only do these facts suggest that the proofs were not overwhelming in this case, they illustrate that an effective cross-examination of the complainant was vital to the defense. Yet, in violation of his statutory right, defendant was removed from the courtroom. Although he was permitted to view the proceedings through closed-circuit television, he was effectively unable to convey urgent lines of inquiry to his lawyer. [11] Defendant was provided with paper and pencil with which to take notes and had the opportunity to consult with his attorney only during a break in the complainant's testimony. Additionally, he was deprived of the ability to make the subtle statement by his presence and demeanor in court that he was innocent of the charges made by his daughter. On the basis of the foregoing facts, we conclude that it is more probable than not that the statutory error was outcome determinative. Therefore, we find that the error requires reversal.