Court Opinion

ID: 9691414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:30:29.72266+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:18.642386
License: Public Domain

Weaver, J.
We granted leave in this case to determine whether a hearsay statement, made approximately ten hours after an event, was properly admitted under MRE 803(2) as an excited utterance. Further, we address whether defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel because his attorney was charged with a felony pending in the same county. We hold that the hearsay statement was admissible as an excited utterance and that defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel. The defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.
i
The complainant was a sixteen-year-old high school sophomore when he joined the gym where he met defendant. Complainant joined the gym to improve his chances of making the varsity baseball team. Defendant was a thirty-one-year-old bodybuilder, from whom others, including complainant, sought weightlifting advice. At some point, defendant and complainant exchanged telephone numbers. Complainant testified that, at that time, defendant had told him that he “expected” complainant to call him. *546Shortly thereafter, in January 1991, complainant telephoned the defendant to invite him out for a movie and pizza. Defendant picked the complainant up and then picked up defendant’s roommate to join them. Defendant testified that he and his roommate had been in a homosexual relationship for two years. That evening, the conversation revolved around baseball and bodybuilding. Complainant testified that he did not understand why defendant’s roommate had come along.
One week later, complainant called defendant to ask if defendant wanted to go bowling. Defendant suggested they watch a movie at defendant’s house instead. Defendant again picked complainant up and they returned to defendant’s house. Complainant testified that while watching the movie defendant said that he found complainant interesting and asked complainant if he was open-minded. Sometime later defendant asked him, “What do you think about getting your dick sucked?” Complainant responded, “I’m not funny, if that’s what you mean.”
Soon thereafter, two women stopped by for directions to a party. Defendant led them by car to the party with complainant in the front passenger seat. Complainant testified to a growing uneasiness. In response to this uneasiness, defendant said he would take complainant home. Defendant briefly went into the party and came out with a man whom he drove to the store for more beer. When complainant attempted to move to the backseat of the car, defendant said to him, “You don’t have to take the backseat for nobody.” After going to the store, the three went back to the party, where defendant and complainant stayed *547for a brief time. After leaving the party, defendant took complainant back to defendant’s house.
Upon return to defendant’s house, complainant testified that defendant offered to involve him in a business venture if complainant would allow defendant to perform fellatio on him. Complainant testified that he told defendant that the proposition was “sick.” Complainant testified that at this point the defendant got very angry, that the defendant would not allow him to leave, and that the options offered by defendant became increasingly violent. Complainant testified further that defendant told him to leave and then would not allow him to go, and that complainant became increasingly frightened. Defendant then promised to take complainant home after defendant smoked a joint, but instead of taking him home at that point, defendant offered complainant other choices. Defendant gave the complainant the choice between fighting defendant, who outsized complainant by eight inches and one hundred pounds, or allowing defendant to perform fellatio on him. When complainant asked to use the telephone, defendant said, “You’re just going to call your mom .... I’ll just beat her up. I’ll beat up whoever comes over, or I’ll just call my friends to beat them up.” Complainant testified that defendant then pushed him and hit him in the chest and leg.
At that point, a group of people came to the door and defendant told complainant to be quiet because they had guns. After the people left, complainant testified that defendant gave him another option: either let defendant perform fellatio or he would give him over to the people who were coming by again later and who were “sicker” than defendant and into *548“s & M.” Complainant testified that defendant then held scissors to his neck to force compliance with defendant’s request. When complainant assented, defendant first told him that he was not gay and would take complainant home. But minutes later, defendant reiterated his threat. Again, complainant assented and defendant told him that he would stop on complainant’s request. Defendant then performed fellatio on complainant. After about one minute, and at complainant’s request, defendant stopped.
Although defendant testified that there was a conversation regarding open-mindedness and his homosexuality, he denied that he became violent or forced complainant to allow him to perform fellatio. He denied any sexual contact with complainant.
The defendant then drove the complainant home at approximately 1:45 in the morning. Complainant’s mother testified that she came to the door when complainant returned home because he was having a difficult time getting the door unlocked. She inquired if anything was wrong and testified that his response was, “Oh, mom, leave me alone.” She observed that complainant seemed tearful and emotional. Without answering his mother’s second inquiry, complainant abruptly left the room and took a bath with the water running continually for approximately one horn1. The mother observed complainant pacing the floor and punching his hand into his fist. She testified further that at approximately 5:30 A.M., complainant was uncharacteristically sleeping on the livingroom couch, though his bedroom was adjacent to the livingroom, and that his eyelashes appeared wet.
At 11 o’clock the next morning complainant awoke. He testified that he asked his father for a weightlifting *549bench, and that his father responded, “Maybe later.” Later he asked his mother, who said she would buy him a bench for his birthday in June. His mother testified that at that moment complainant stated, “Mom, I can’t wait that long,” and started crying and rocking back and forth. She further testified that when she asked him what was wrong, he responded, “Oh, mom, I had to be sucked off last night before I can [sic] even come home.”
It is this statement to which defense counsel objected. However, the court ruled that the statement was admissible as an excited utterance. The jury ultimately convicted defendant of first-degree criminal sexual conduct. Defendant appealed, challenging among other issues, the admission of the hearsay statement. Further, defendant claimed that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, because, at the time of trial, his attorney had been charged with a criminal offense in the same county.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction for different reasons. It held that the statement did not qualify as an excited utterance, but that the admission of the statement was harmless error because it was cumulative, given complainant’s testimony. With respect to the effective assistance of counsel argument, the Court found no conflict of interest because the judge and the prosecutor involved in counsel’s case were not the same as those in defendant’s case. This Court granted leave limited to these issues. 454 Mich 873 (1997).
n
We generally review a trial court’s determination of evidentiary issues for an abuse of discretion. People v *550Adair, 452 Mich 473, 482; 550 NW2d 505 (1996), citing People v Perkins, 424 Mich 302, 308; 379 NW2d 390 (1986). Close questions arising from the trial court’s exercise of discretion on an evidentiary issue should not be reversed simply because the reviewing court would have ruled differently. People v Bahoda, 448 Mich 261, 289; 531 NW2d 659 (1995), quoting People v Golochowicz, 413 Mich 298, 322; 319 NW2d 518 (1982). The trial court’s decision on a close evidentiary question ordinarily cannot be an abuse of discretion. Id.
MRE 803(2) defines an excited utterance as “[a] statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.” The rule allows hearsay testimony that would otherwise be excluded because it is perceived that a person who is still under the “sway of excitement precipitated by an external startling event will not have the reflective capacity essential for fabrication so that any utterance will be spontaneous and trustworthy.” 5 Weinstein, Evidence (2d ed), § 803.04[1], p 803-19.
In People v Straight, 430 Mich 418, 424; 424 NW2d 257 (1988), this Court cited the two primary requirements for excited utterances: 1) that there be a startling event, and 2) that the resulting statement be made while under the excitement caused by the event. Straight clarified People v Gee, 406 Mich 279, 282; 278 NW2d 304 (1979), which had split the second requirement into two inquiries: whether the statement was made before there was time to contrive and misrepresent, and whether it related to the circumstances of the startling occasion. Straight explained:
*551Properly understood, Gee's requirement that the statement must “be made before there has been time to contrive and misrepresent” is simply a reformulation of the inquiry as to whether the statement was made when the witness was still under the influence of an overwhelming emotional condition. [Id., p 425.]
This explanation clarified that it is the lack of capacity to fabricate, not the lack of time to fabricate, that is the focus of the excited utterance rule. The question is not strictly one of time, but of the possibility for conscious reflection. 5 Weinstein, supra, § 803.04[4], p 803-23.
In this case, the Court of Appeals found that, although the complainant was still under the stress of the assault, “the statement did not qualify as an excited utterance because . . . the statement was made after there was sufficient time to permit reflective thought.” Unpublished opinion per curiam, decided July 11, 1995 (Docket No. 148757). This reasoning is flawed. Though the time that passes between the event and the statement is an important factor to be considered in determining whether the declarant was still under the stress of the event when the statement was made, it is not dispositive. It is necessary to consider whether there was a plausible explanation for the delay. Gee, p 283. Unlike MRE 803(1), the present sense impression exception, which requires that the “statement describing or explaining an event or condition [be] made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter,” there is no express time limit for excited utterances. “Physical factors, such as shock, unconsciousness, or pain, may prolong the period in which the risk of fabrication is reduced to *552an acceptable minimum.” 5 Weinstein, supra, § 803.04[4], p 803-24.1 The trial court’s determination whether the declarant was still under the stress of the event is given wide discretion. McCormick, Evidence (3d ed), § 297, p 857.
There can be no question that the sexual assault in this case was a startling event. The question is whether the complainant was still under the stress of the assault when he stated to his mother ten hours later, “I had to be sucked off last night before I can [sic] even come home.” The circumstances preceding and surrounding the statement convince us that the statement was made while the complainant was still under the overwhelming influence of the assault and, therefore, that the statement was reliable and admissible.
We find that the complainant’s actions upon arriving home were extraordinary. When he arrived home at approximately 1:45 A.M., he took an hour-long bath and let the water run that entire time. Afterward, he paced the living room and his mother observed him punching his fist into his hand. At approximately 5:30 A.M., complainant uncharacteristically slept on the couch, though his bedroom adjoined the living room. His mother observed that he appeared to have been crying. At approximately 11 o’clock the next morning, the complainant asked his father and mother separately for a weight bench. His father said maybe, and later, when his mother said yes, but not for three months, complainant broke into tears. When his *553mother asked what was wrong, complainant made the statement in question. We agree with the trial court that these circumstances describe a continuing level of stress arising from the assault that precluded any possibility of fabrication.
The defense cites not only the time lapse between the event and the statement, but also the fact that the statement was made in response to questioning. Like the question of elapsed time, whether a statement made in response to questioning should be excluded under MRE 803(2) depends on the circumstances of the questioning and whether it appears that the statement was the result of reflective thought. McCormick, supra, p 857. In Straight, the Court found that the stress caused by the parents’ suggestive questioning of their four year old immediately after the child’s pelvic area had been examined for evidence of molestation may well have supplanted any residual stress from an alleged assault. Id., p 426. Though acknowledging that the questioning was not grounds for automatic exclusion, the Court could not be sure that the stress of the alleged assault was continuing. Unlike the questioning in Straight, the mother’s inquiries of the complainant when he arrived home and the following morning were not suggestive, nor can the two inquiries be characterized as persistent and insistent. Contrasted with the questioning in Straight during which the four-year-old complainant’s parents repeatedly asked the child to tell them what happened until she answered,2 there is nothing about the mother’s inquiries in the present case that undermines confidence in the conclusion that the complainant’s state*554ment resulted from the stress of the assault and not from the “stress” of his mother’s inquiries. Further, the lapse of time between the event and the statement was shorter in this case than it was in Straight, and we find no evidence suggesting that the stress arising from the assault had abated.3
One final rationale for excluding the statement is that complainant’s request for a weight bench might appear self-serving or at least to exemplify rational thought. However, from our review of the circumstances surrounding the statement, fabrication seems a remote possibility. It appears that the “dam simply broke” after complainant realized that in order to keep weightlifting, he would have to go to the gym where he would be faced with seeing defendant. Thus, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the statement because we find that statement was admissible as an excited utterance.4
Even if we were to agree with the Court of Appeals that it was error to admit complainant’s statement, we would affirm the Court of Appeals ruling that the error was harmless. The Court of Appeals concluded that the error was harmless because the statement was cumulative to the victim’s own in-court testimony. We clarify that the fact that the statement was cumulative, standing alone, does not automatically result in a finding of harmless error. Harmless error review requires reversal only if the error is prejudi*555cial. People v Mateo, 453 Mich 203, 215; 551 NW2d 891 (1996) (summarizing the articulations of harmful error in MCL 769.26; MSA 28.1096, MCR 2.613[A], and MRE 103). The inquiry into prejudice “focuses on the nature of the error and assesses its effect in light of the weight and strength of the untainted evidence.” Id. The reviewing court must consider the entire record. Id., p 217. Although the statement in question is certainly alarming in content, we find no prejudice requiring reversal in light of the entire record. Complainant had already testified regarding the escalating threats and forced fellatio. Further, the mother’s testimony, which was replete with evidence of the complainant’s distress upon his arrival home, corroborated complainant’s testimony. Nor can we say, given the entire testimony of the mother and complainant, that the defendant’s theory, his denial of the threats and forced fellatio, was eroded by admission of the statement.5
in
Defendant argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights because his attorney was charged with a felony pending in the same county. Defendant asks *556that we presume a conflict of interest exists whenever an attorney is being prosecuted in the same county as a criminal defendant whom he represents. We decline to create such a rule and hold instead that in order to demonstrate that a conflict of interest has violated his Sixth Amendment rights, a defendant “must establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance.” Cuyler v Sullivan, 446 US 335, 350; 100 S Ct 1708; 64 L Ed 2d 333 (1980).6
In People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298; 521 NW2d 797 (1994), this Court adopted the ineffective assistance of counsel standard articulated by Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668; 104 S Ct 2052; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984). To prove a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Pickens and Strickland, a defendant must show that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense so as to deny defendant a fair trial. Strickland, pp 688-689. In dicta however, Strickland cited Cuyler's rule for cases involving ineffective assistance of counsel claims premised on an actual conflict, of interest. Id., p 692. Cuyler calls for a heightened standard in conflict of interest claims. In circumstances involving a conflict of interest, Cuyler stated that “counsel breaches the duty of loyalty, perhaps the most basic of counsel’s duties. Moreover, it is difficult to measure the precise effect on the defense of representation corrupted by conflicting interests.” Strickland, p 692. This heightened standard is not a rule of *557prejudice per se; rather, “[prejudice is presumed only if the defendant demonstrates that counsel ‘actively represented conflicting interests’ and that ‘an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s performance.’ ” Id., quoting Cuyler, supra, pp 348-350.
Cuyler involved an alleged conflict of interest arising from an attorney’s representation of codefendants. Defendant argues that a potential conflict of interest between an attorney and his client is more serious than the representation of codefendants and, therefore, claims that a rule of prejudice per se is necessary. However, we find our reasoning in People v Pubrat, 451 Mich 589; 548 NW2d 595 (1996), persuasive in this case. In Pubrat, we held that an attorney’s suspension from the practice of law does not create a presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel. We reasoned, “[a]ttomeys may be suspended from the practice of law for a multitude of reasons . . . [and] there is no necessary correlation between an attorney’s suspension and competency . . . Id., p 598. Similarly, we find that there is no automatic correlation between an attorney’s theoretical self-interest and an ability to loyally serve a defendant. As in Pubrat, we recognize the potential for an attorney’s self-interest to conflict with the representation of a defendant and that in such a case a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel would be warranted. If a convicted defendant believes that his attorney’s representation was below an objective standard of reasonableness, the appropriate procedure is to seek a Ginther hearing. People v Ginther, 390 Mich 436; 212 NW2d 922 (1973).
We find that a rule per se is inappropriate and favor the reasoned approach of Cuyler, supra. In this case, *558defendant has cited no evidence to suggest that defense counsel actively lessened his defense as a result of his pending felony charge, nor do we find evidence of an actual conflict of interest on the record. To the contrary, defense counsel vigorously pursued his objections and presented a strong case.
iv
The defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Mallett, C.J., and Boyle and Taylor JJ., concurred with Weaver, J.

 Instead of treating physical conditions as a factor to consider in excited utterance analysis, the dissent would create a new rule which makes physical factors such as shock, unconsciousness, or pain a prerequisite for the admission of an excited utterance after a lapse of time.

 See Straight, supra at 421, n 1.

 In Straight, the statement was not made until approximately one month after the incident. Id. at 421.

 We acknowledge that this statement is nearing the outer limits of admissibility under the excited utterance exception, and trial courts should be so cautioned.

 The dissent relies on Straight, supra, to support its conclusion that admission of the statement was not harmless error. In Straight, Justice Boyle concluded that, when viewed as a “one-to-one credibility contest between the child and defendant,” this Court could not conclude that the parents’ testimony regarding the complainant’s statements did not influence the jury’s decision. Id. at 427-428. However, Straight is distinguishable because it involved the testimony of a five-year-old complainant, while the present case involves the testimony of a sixteen-year-old complainant whom the defense had full opportunity to cross-examine. Thus, in light of all the evidence, we conclude that the admission of the statement did not tip the scales in favor of a guilty verdict.

 Const 1963, art 1, § 20 provides no greater protection than the Sixth Amendment of the federal constitution. People v Pickens, 446 Mich 298, 326; 521 NW2d 797 (1994).