People of Michigan v. Joshua Lee Thorpe
332694
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 10, 2017Background
- Defendant Joshua Lee Thorpe was convicted by a jury of three counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct (victim under 13) and sentenced to 71 months–15 years plus lifetime electronic monitoring.
- Prosecution presented a forensic-expert witness about child-sex-abuse disclosure patterns and the victim gave detailed testimony about three separate incidents.
- Defense sought to impeach the victim with testimony from defendant’s mother about (a) whether a dog was present in the trailer at the time of the incidents, and (b) a statement that the victim said the assault occurred only once; the trial record contains no clear rulings or offers of proof on those lines of questioning.
- Defense objected to expert testimony that a small percentage of child sexual-abuse allegations are false, relying on People v Peterson to argue improper vouching under MRE 702.
- Defense claimed prosecutorial misconduct in closing and rebuttal for vouching for the victim and disparaging defense counsel; no contemporaneous objections were made at trial.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding any expert-testimony error harmless, no reversible exclusion of impeachment evidence given the record, and no plain error in prosecutors’ remarks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert testimony about low percentage of false disclosures | Expert testimony about rarity of false child-abuse allegations was proper and based on specialized knowledge | Testimony vouched for victim’s credibility and was inadmissible under MRE 702/Peterson | Even if improper, any error was harmless given strong corroborating testimony and other evidence; no reversal |
| Exclusion of testimony about a dog being present | N/A (prosecution objected to relevance) | Defense sought to show dog was dead before incidents to impeach victim’s account | No definitive ruling or offer of proof on record; appellate court will not review; defendant not prejudiced; no reversal |
| Exclusion of prior inconsistent statement to defendant’s mother (victim said ‘once’) | N/A | Defense argued MRE 613(b) allowed impeachment by showing victim told mother assault occurred only once | Victim had conceded it was “possible” she told mother that; no offer of proof or clear ruling; no prejudice shown; no reversal |
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (vouching/disparaging defense counsel) | Prosecutor’s comments were grounded in trial evidence and proper rebuttal | Comments amounted to improper vouching and suggested defense counsel intended to mislead jury | No plain error: prosecutor argued from evidence; rebuttal was a permissible response to defense attacks; no relief |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Peterson, 450 Mich. 349 (1995) (expert testimony about veracity rates may impermissibly vouch for child-victim credibility)
- People v. Lukity, 460 Mich. 484 (1999) (harmless-error analysis for preserved evidentiary errors)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (1999) (plain-error standard for unpreserved appellate review)
- People v. Seals, 285 Mich. App. 1 (2009) (prosecutor may not vouch using special knowledge of witness truthfulness)
- People v. Unger, 278 Mich. App. 210 (2008) (prosecutor may argue witness credibility from record evidence)
- People v. Watson, 245 Mich. App. 572 (2001) (limits on suggesting defense counsel intentionally misleads jury; permissible rebuttal scope)
- People v. Thomas, 260 Mich. App. 450 (2004) (no ineffective-assistance claim when objections would be futile)