People of Michigan v. Joshua David Holloway
328378
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 15, 2016Background
- Defendant Joshua Holloway was tried by jury for sexual offenses involving a child (convicted of second-degree criminal sexual conduct; sentenced 1–15 years). He was acquitted of one CSC-I count and two CSC-IV counts.
- The child-victim ("DC") initially disclosed the conduct while at a mental-health facility (Havenwyck); she later gave fuller trial testimony describing repeated "cuddling"/"spooning" in the defendant’s bedroom.
- Defense sought Havenwyck mental-health records; trial court denied compelled disclosure and did not conduct a full in camera review of the privileged records, but the court should have reviewed DC’s statements to Havenwyck in camera (error deemed harmless).
- During voir dire the court asked participants to refer to jurors by number rather than name; defense did not object at trial.
- Trial allowed brief testimony that defendant watched pornography in the bedroom; defendant also challenges a prosecutor comment in rebuttal about delayed disclosures and contends his counsel was ineffective for not objecting.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of in camera review of Havenwyck records | State: defendant failed to show a good-faith, fact-based probability that privileged records contain material defense evidence | Holloway: records likely contain material mental-health/medication info and statements to Havenwyck relevant to credibility | Court: defendant failed to show reasonable probability for broad records; but trial court should have reviewed DC’s statements to Havenwyck in camera — error harmless because DC had already admitted earlier, less-detailed disclosures and defense could challenge consistency |
| Use of juror numbers (anonymous jury) | State: court’s administrative use of numbers did not withhold relevant juror info or undermine presumption of innocence | Holloway: numbering prejudicial and could compromise fairness; court failed to minimize prejudice by explaining administrative use | Court: issue unpreserved; no plain error — no material info withheld, voir dire meaningful, presumption not compromised |
| Admission of pornography testimony | State: testimony was relevant to sexual purpose and not unduly prejudicial | Holloway: irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial | Court: admission proper — watching pornography in bedroom made sexual-purpose inference more probable and testimony was brief with limited prejudicial effect |
| Prosecutor’s rebuttal comment on delayed disclosures and ineffective assistance claim | State: comment was a reasonable inference from DC’s testimony about delay; any error harmless | Holloway: prosecutor argued facts not in evidence; counsel ineffective for failing to object | Court: issue unpreserved; comment at most an inference from victim’s testimony; even assuming error or deficient counsel, defendant cannot show a reasonable probability of a different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Stanaway, 446 Mich. 643 (1994) (privileged records: trial court must conduct in camera review if defendant shows reasonable probability records contain material defense evidence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v. Hanks, 276 Mich. App. 91 (2007) (preservation and review principles for anonymous-jury challenges)
- People v. Williams, 241 Mich. App. 519 (2000) (voir dire conduct; anonymous-jury analysis)
- People v. Unger, 278 Mich. App. 210 (2008) (standards for reviewing unpreserved prosecutorial-error claims)
- People v. Coy, 258 Mich. App. 1 (2003) (definition and relevance principles for evidence)