Court Opinion

ID: 9516765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:51:37.99408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:09.040616
License: Public Domain

Danhof, C.J.
(dissenting). I do not agree with the majority’s holding that evidence of alleged prostitution is relevant to the issue of consent. The "rape shield” statute, MCL 750.520j(l); MSA 28.788(10)(1), and MRE 404(a)(3) reflect the general rule that "evidence of a complainant’s prior sexual unchastity, in the form of reputation evidence or a specific instance of conduct, has little or no relevancy to the issue of complainant’s consent with defendant.” People v Hackett, 421 Mich 338, 354; 365 NW2d 120 (1984). Accordingly, our Supreme Court held that evidence of a complainant’s reputation as a homosexual was irrelevant to show consent. Hackett, supra, p 353.
Likewise, I do not think that complainant’s reputation as a prostitute is relevant to show consent. The fact that financially induced consent is alleged does not make the evidence of alleged prostitution any more relevant than the reputation evidence in Hackett that was used to show consent to homosexual activity. I would not address the right to confrontation issue because defendant’s right to confrontation only extends to relevant evidence. Hackett, supra, p 354.