People of Michigan v. Jack Chris Bieri
332376
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 3, 2017Background
- Defendant Jack Chris Bieri lived with the complainant (an 11‑year‑old) and her mother; on Dec. 31, 2014 the complainant later reported sexual assault by defendant.
- Hospital SANE exam on Jan. 1, 2015 documented a genital laceration likely from forced penetration and recorded the complainant’s statements identifying defendant and describing the assault.
- Forensic testing produced defendant‑consistent DNA on a circumoral swab and partial/more equivocal results from underwear.
- Defendant was convicted by jury of two counts CSC‑1 and one count CSC‑2 and sentenced as a fourth‑offense habitual offender to lengthy prison terms.
- On appeal, defendant argued ineffective assistance of counsel (various failures to cross‑examine, object, and call witnesses) and that the trial court abused its discretion by denying state funds for an independent scientific expert.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Bieri) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance — failure to investigate/cross‑examine and call witnesses | Counsel’s choices were reasonable trial strategy; defendant gave counsel no facts to support alternative theories | Counsel failed to fully challenge witnesses, object to hearsay, and call proposed defense witnesses | No ineffective assistance; defendant failed to overcome Strickland presumption |
| 2. Admissibility of SANE statements under MRE 803(4) | Victim’s statements were reasonably necessary for diagnosis/treatment and trustworthy | Statements identifying assailant and reporting defendant’s instruction to keep secret were hearsay and not treatment‑related | Statements admissible under medical‑treatment exception (Meeboer rationale); even if some were close, admission was not prejudicial |
| 3. Denial of state funds for independent DNA expert | Trial court correctly required a demonstrable nexus and more than speculative benefit (Carnicom standard) | Needed expert to retest and challenge chain‑of‑custody and DNA conclusions; possible transfer/tampering | Denial not an abuse of discretion: defendant showed only speculative benefit and DNA evidence was not central nor uniquely contested |
| 4. Counsel’s failure to assist with funding motion (Ackley claim) | Ackley is distinguishable: scientific evidence here was not central nor highly contested | Counsel should have aided in securing funds as in Ackley | Ackley inapplicable; no prejudice shown because science here was neither central nor controversial |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑part ineffective assistance standard)
- People v. McGraw, 484 Mich. 120 (discusses presumption of sound strategy and Strickland application)
- People v. Meeboer, 439 Mich. 310 (admission of victim identification to medical provider under medical‑treatment hearsay exception)
- People v. Carnicom, 272 Mich. App. 614 (standard for appointing expert funds—nexus and more than speculative benefit)
- People v. Ackley, 497 Mich. 381 (counsel ineffective where prosecution’s case relied centrally on contested expert science)