People of Michigan v. Javon Harris
327301
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 14, 2016Background
- Defendant Javon Harris was convicted of first-degree and second-degree criminal sexual conduct; he appeals those convictions.
- Two investigators (Det. Kristine Beenen and NCIS Special Agent Mike Pierce) testified that the victim’s in-court testimony was consistent with prior interviews.
- Defense argued those consistency statements were improper credibility testimony and not admissible as prior consistent statements under MRE 801(d)(1)(B).
- Detective Beenen also testified (question withdrawn) that the victim’s behavior was consistent with a sexual-abuse victim; the prosecutor withdrew the question and the court instructed the jury to disregard it.
- Defendant raised additional claims of prosecutorial misconduct, denial of a fair trial, and ineffective assistance of counsel; most were cursorily briefed.
- The Court of Appeals found the challenged consistency testimony was inadmissible but concluded any error was not outcome-determinative and affirmed the convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Harris) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of officers’ testimony that victim’s in-court testimony was consistent with prior interviews | Testimony was proper as prior consistent statements or at least harmless | Such testimony improperly vouched for credibility and was inadmissible under MRE 801(d)(1)(B) | Statements were inadmissible; plain error found but not outcome-determinative given admissions and corroborating evidence; conviction affirmed |
| Admission under MRE 801(d)(1)(B) where charge of recent fabrication arose | Admissibility justified after implied charge arose during cross-exam | Prior statements were not prior to the alleged motive to fabricate, so rule does not apply | Beenen’s statement inadmissible (no prior charge pre-testimony); Pierce’s statement inadmissible because the prior statement occurred after motive arose |
| Detective’s comment that victim’s behavior was consistent with sexual-abuse victims | Such testimony was permissible or harmless; prosecutor withdrew question | Testimony constituted improper profile-based credibility evidence | Question withdrawn and jury instructed to disregard; court presumed jurors followed instruction — no relief granted |
| Prosecutorial misconduct / prestige-of-office and denial of fair trial | Prosecutor’s conduct was proper | Prosecutor improperly vouched; trial was unfair | Claims were inadequately preserved/briefed and abandoned; appellate review found them meritless |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Counsel’s choices were strategically reasonable | Counsel failed to object/preserve issues and was ineffective | Argument inadequately briefed; court found strategy reasonable and no reasonable probability of different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (1999) (plain-error standard for unpreserved claims)
- People v Dobek, 274 Mich. App. 58 (2007) (impropriety of witnesses testifying on another witness’s credibility)
- People v Smith, 158 Mich. App. 220 (1987) (police testimony that trial testimony matched prior statements inadmissible as prior consistent statements)
- People v Jones, 240 Mich. App. 704 (2000) (elements for admitting prior consistent statements under MRE 801(d)(1)(B))
- People v Graves, 458 Mich. 476 (1998) (jurors presumed to follow jury instructions)
- People v Miller, 238 Mich. App. 168 (1999) (issues not raised in statement of questions presented are not properly before the appellate court)
- People v Kelly, 231 Mich. App. 627 (1998) (appellate briefs must adequately argue and cite authority)
- People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich. 38 (2012) (deference to trial strategy in ineffective assistance claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)