Court Opinion

ID: 9658108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:46:45.993443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:51.533431
License: Public Domain

Shepherd, P.J.
(concurring). I concur in the result because defendant did not comply with the ten-day notice provision of the rape-shield statute that was held by the United States Supreme Court not to be per se unconstitutional on the same day, May 20, 1991, as our original opinion in this case. Michigan v Lucas, 500 US —; 111 S Ct 1743; 114 L Ed 2d 205 (1991). Had defendant complied, the prosecutor would have been able to attempt to verify his version of the facts — an opportunity which effectively disappeared with the passage of time on the date of trial. Then, once such verification occurred, the trial judge could have held an in camera hearing to determine whether, under the facts of this case, the evidence was more probative than prejudicial or inflammatory.
Under the rape-shield statute, the evidence in question is clearly inadmissible if the statute is to be read in its literal terms in all cases. However, in cases such as People v Hackett, 421 Mich 338; 365 NW2d 120 (1984), cited in the majority opinion, the statute has effectively been rewritten by the Michigan Supreme Court in order to preserve a defendant’s right of confrontation. As the majority acknowledges, the cases, including Hackett, make it very clear that in some cases evidence of the sexual conduct of the complainant with third parties, beyond evidence showing the source or origin of semen, pregnancy or disease, is admissible. Such a concept is in no way reconcilable with the express language of the rape-shield statute unless it is acknowledged that the statute is nothing more than a rule of evidence that, like all other rules of evidence, must be interpreted in such a way as to preserve a defendant’s right to present a defense, to preserve his presumption of *589innocence, and to protect his right of confrontation.
While it is true that a woman in a rape case does not have to defend her reputation or her past conduct, it is equally true that a defendant stands before the court clothed with a presumption of innocence and without the obligation of proving anything at all. As a rule of evidence, the rape-shield statute was designed to strike a balance between these sometime conflicting considerations. Cases such as Hackett hold that the statute did not achieve that balance and that the statute must always be interpreted and applied in a manner that preserves the rights of both defendants and accusers.
The first inquiry in any of these situations is whether evidence exists in support of a defendant’s claims. Then, the question would be whether the evidence, if true, fits within the Hackett exceptions to the strict language of the statute. If the facts are covered by the exceptions, a question would still remain whether the specific evidence is more prejudicial or inflammatory than probative.
None of these matters can be explored unless the ten-day rule is invoked by the defendant— particularly where the defendant was at all times aware of the alleged facts that he claims are essential to his defense and where the testimony of others who could corroborate the defendant’s allegations might have been discovered had the prosecutor been aware of the need of conducting an investigation. In this case the prosecution was deprived of any opportunity to conduct a meaningful investigation, and the trial judge was correct in pointing out the basic unfairness of the way defendant sought to proceed. For that reason, I agree to affirm.
*590It might very well be that the evidence would prove to be inadmissible after a hearing. However, when a defendant deprives this Court of ever knowing the outcome of such an inquiry, I would prefer that this Court not address the merits of that defendant’s position.
To those who argue that a complainant’s sexual conduct with third parties is never admissible except as specifically provided in the rape-shield statute, the Hackett opinion responds that this is not so, if to exclude the evidence deprives the defendant of a proper trial. However, I interpret Hackett to say that in order to take the evidence out of the rape-shield statute’s protection, a defendant must comply with the ten-day notice requirement even in those factual contexts that are not precisely within the very limited statutory exceptions. 421 Mich 349-350. In my view, it would make no sense to say that a defendant must give notice of the enumerated exceptions of the rape-shield statute that are matters that can easily be investigated by the prosecutor, and yet absolve the defendant from giving notice of claimed sexual conduct that requires immediate investigation in order to preserve whatever corroboration might be available. I note that Lucas, supra, states that the ten-day rule is particularly valid in cases where, as here, the potential for surprise to the prosecutor is a concern.
Given the fact that Lucas was decided by the United States Supreme Court the same day as our first opinion in this case, I am somewhat concerned that the parties may not have had an opportunity to address the Court regarding the applicability of that case to this one. Lucas, for example, took no position on whether the ten-day period was too short to be constitutionally valid in the particular setting of the case. It should be *591remembered that Lucas was remanded to this Court for further consideration of that and other related questions. The Supreme Court said in Lucas:
We express no opinion as to whether or not preclusion was justified in this case. The Michigan Court of Appeals, whose decision we review here, did not address whether the trial court abused its discretion on the facts before it. Rather, the Court of Appeals adopted a per se rule that preclusion is unconstitutional in all cases where the victim had a prior sexual relationship with the defendant. That judgment was error. We leave it to the Michigan courts to address in the first instance whether Michigan’s rape shield statute authorizes preclusion and whether, on the facts of this case, preclusion violated Lucas’ rights under the Sixth Amendment. [111 S Ct 1748.]
I am satisfied that my view of the ten-day rule in this case is correct because the prosecutor did not become aware of the new defense theory until trial had already begun. Nevertheless, mindful that even the most careful review of a case can miss the mark, I would invite the prosecutor or the defendant to call any error regarding this issue to our attention by means of a motion for rehearing.