Opinion ID: 831197
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the trial court's grant of a new trial

Text: Defendant was charged with third-degree criminal sexual conduct [3] after a fourteen-year-old friend of his younger sister alleged that he had sexually assaulted her. Pontiac Police Detective Derrance Betts was assigned initially to investigate two separate incidents involving defendant and the complainant, one allegedly having occurred in defendant's kitchen and the other in a car. [4] Betts testified at trial that, after interviewing the victim, he sent defendant a letter requesting that he come to the police station for an interview, and defendant did so voluntarily. At the interview, Betts testified, he told defendant that he was free to leave anytime he wished and would not be arrested as a consequence. Betts testified that defendant confirmed that he knew the complainant. Betts informed defendant that he had been accused of criminal sexual conduct but provided no details about the allegations. Betts then testified that he asked where defendant was living at the time of the alleged assaults. He said that defendant gave inconsistent answers concerning locations where he and his wife had lived. Betts testified that he was confused by the answers and wanted to obtain a better timeline from defendant. Defendant responded to the request by saying that it was not his fault that Betts was confused. At that point, Betts testified, defendant became upset, said he was done, and stormed out of the interview. Betts also indicated that he had been unable to question defendant about the kitchen incident, but that defendant never denied any allegations of sexual misconduct. The Court of Appeals described portions of the disputed testimony: Betts testified that he just brought up about the criminal sexual conduct against [the complainant] and that defendant never denied it. Hehe justhe just sat there, and ... he made a comment about the back of the car. Betts stated that he advised defendant of the allegations of something occurring on the kitchen floor, and defendant never denied it. Betts later explained that he told [defendant] that he was being accused of a criminal sexual conduct. I don't believe I came right out and asked him did he do it, `cause he never did respond to a question. [5] The trial transcript also indicates that Betts testified about defendant's act of leaving the interview: Betts: I needed to talk to him a bit more, to get some more information. Because all of the information he threw at me about Tennessee, II explained to him that I was confused and I needed to talk to him a bit more, to kind ofto help weed it out a little bit. And, that's when hehe became upset and walked out, and stormed out of the interview room. I didn't have a chance to ask him any more questions `cause he was free to go. When defense counsel objected to this line of questioning, the trial court instructed the jury that someone being interviewed by the police has an absolute right to leave the interview. However, on cross-examination, Detective Betts again discussed defendant's failure to deny the allegations and emphasized that defendant chose to leave the interview, stating: I gave [defendant] an opportunity to talk to me ... about it ... and he stormed out of the interview. Defense counsel responded, Right, but there's nothing wrong with that ... and don't try to make the jurors think that there is something wrong with that. Again, Betts insisted: I figured I'd give him an opportunity to tell his side of the story.... And he stormed out, so. At the end of proofs, the trial court gave the jury a second cautionary instruction that reiterated that defendant had an absolute right not to testify and not to be interviewed. The jury found defendant guilty of third-degree criminal sexual conduct, as charged. Defendant moved for a new trial, arguing that Detective Betts had improperly commented about his silence during the interview and about his departure, and that the curative instruction was not sufficient. The prosecutor argued that there was no error and, even if there had been error, it was expressly waived once the curative instruction was administered and accepted by defense counsel. The trial court held a hearing, recounted much of Betts's testimony, and found it was clearly prejudicial to defendant and constituted irreparable error. Therefore, the court granted defendant a new trial. On appeal by the prosecution, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order for a new trial. [6] It concluded that no error had occurred because [t]here is no indication that Betts made a `positive statement or declaration' to which defendant's silence might be construed as an admission of truth. [7] Alternately, the panel determined that, even if an error occurred, defense counsel waived it by acquiescing in the trial court's curative instruction. We granted leave to appeal. [8]