People of Michigan v. Brian David MacKsey, 333846

Defendant Brian Macksey was convicted by a jury of 1st-degree CSC and two counts of 2nd-degree CSC for sexual assaults on his girlfriend’s daughter; sentences ran concurrently (25–45 years for 1st-degree; 5–15 for each 2nd-degree).
The victim delayed reporting the alleged assaults for about two years; she testified she was told not to tell, feared defendant, feared harm to her family, and was unsure whether defendant had left the state.
Defense planned to introduce evidence that the victim had previously been sexually assaulted by an older boy on a school bus and had reported that prior assault promptly.
Prosecution objected; trial court excluded the prior-incident evidence on relevance grounds (not under the rape-shield statute) after reserving ruling pending expert testimony.
Prosecution’s expert testified that delayed disclosure by child victims is common; defense did not renew the admissibility motion after the expert’s testimony.
On appeal, the court held the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the prior-report evidence as relevant, but the error was harmless and the conviction was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of prior-report evidence	Evidence should be excluded (prosecution previously argued rape‑shield)	Evidence was relevant to show victim knew how to report and to rebut delayed-disclosure explanation	Exclusion was an abuse of discretion; the evidence was relevant and probative but should have been limited in details
Constitutional right to present a defense	State: exclusion was proper	Exclusion violated due process and right to present a defense	Court agreed there was a deprivation in excluding relevant evidence but evaluated prejudice
Harmless-error analysis	Error was prejudicial	Admission would have helped show prompt reporting in prior incident, undermining delayed-disclosure explanation	Error was harmless; other testimony showed victim knew how to report and inculpatory evidence made different result unlikely
Ineffective assistance for not renewing motion	State: counsel’s strategy was reasonable	Counsel’s failure to renew after expert testimony was objectively unreasonable	Counsel was deficient, but defendant failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome; no relief granted

People v. Aldrich, 246 Mich. App. 101 (2001) (general admissibility principle: relevant evidence admissible)
People v. Powell, 303 Mich. App. 271 (2013) (relevance as helpfulness on material points)
People v. Brooks, 453 Mich. 511 (1996) (materiality and probative force framework)
People v. Lukity, 460 Mich. 484 (1999) (harmless-error standard for nonconstitutional and constitutional errors)
People v. Rodriguez, 463 Mich. 466 (2000) (harmless-error analysis and verdict reliability)
People v. Unger, 278 Mich. App. 210 (2008) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
People v. Yost, 278 Mich. App. 341 (2008) (definition of abuse of discretion)
People v. Steele, 283 Mich. App. 472 (2009) (de novo review for deprivation of right to present a defense)
People v. Schrauben, 314 Mich. App. 181 (2016) (Strickland-style prejudice standard for ineffective assistance)