People of Michigan v. John Herbert Gonzales
330060
| Mich. Ct. App. | Feb 23, 2017Background
- Defendant (Gonzales) was stopped in his ex-wife’s vehicle; a pat-down revealed a pill bottle on him containing diazepam (Valium). Laboratory testing confirmed diazepam.
- Trooper Baker asked about the object; defendant said it was his ex-wife’s Valium. Defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance, MCL 333.7403(2)(b).
- Before trial, prosecution moved to exclude the ex-wife’s testimony; she would have said she lived with defendant that day, frequently kept Valium in the van, and often let defendant possess it, but she was not a prescriber or otherwise authorized under the Public Health Code (PHC).
- Trial court excluded her testimony as irrelevant under MRE 402 and potentially confusing under MRE 403, reasoning a prescription-holder who is not a statutory “practitioner” cannot authorize another’s lawful possession under the PHC.
- Defendant appealed, arguing the exclusion deprived him of his constitutional right to present a defense by barring the only witness who could corroborate his claim of authorization to possess the pills.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the testimony was irrelevant to any statutory exemption and its exclusion did not abridge the constitutional right to present a defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusion of ex-wife’s testimony violated defendant’s right to present a defense | Exclusion proper because testimony was irrelevant and potentially confusing; she was not present at offense and not a practitioner | Exclusion prevented corroboration of defense that he was authorized to possess the pills and thus denied constitutional right to present defense | Testimony irrelevant because statute requires possession pursuant to a practitioner’s prescription or other statutory authorization; exclusion did not violate constitutional rights |
| Whether a non-practitioner prescription-holder can authorize another’s lawful possession under PHC | Only statutory practitioners can authorize lawful possession; PHC cannot be read to create non-enumerated authorizers | A prescription-holder (friend/family) can authorize possession by another if they gave the pills | Rejected defendant’s reading; statute does not permit private authorization by non-practitioners |
| Whether testimony was admissible under MRE 402/403 as relevant evidence | Probative value minimal and outweighed by confusion; not relevant to elements or statutory exemptions | Testimony was probative to show source/authorization for possession | Court held evidence not relevant to statutory exemption and properly excluded under rules of evidence |
| Who bears burden of proving statutory exemption to possession | Defendant must show exemption if claiming it | Same | Court applied rule that defendant bears burden to prove exemption; proposed testimony did not satisfy that burden |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Steele, 283 Mich. App. 472 (discussing de novo review of constitutional right-to-present-defense claims)
- People v Brownridge, 459 Mich. 456 (trial court’s exclusion of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- People v Lane, 308 Mich. App. 38 (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)
- People v Yost, 278 Mich. App. 341 (recognizing right to call witnesses is subject to rules of evidence)
- United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (defendant’s presentation rights may yield to evidentiary rules)
- People v Unger, 278 Mich. App. 210 (MRE 402 does not arbitrarily abridge right to present a defense)
- People v Mills, 450 Mich. 61 (relevance defined as making a consequential fact more or less probable)
- United States v. Dunn, 805 F.2d 1275 (framework for assessing relevance to material issues)
- People v Pegenau, 447 Mich. 278 (defendant bears burden to prove statutory exemption to controlled-substance possession)
- People v Hock Shop, Inc., 261 Mich. App. 521 (courts must not read beyond statutory text to create rights or exemptions)