People of Michigan v. Leon Watson
333125
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 22, 2017Background
- Defendant Leon Watson was convicted by a jury of multiple counts of first-, second-, and third-degree criminal sexual conduct for repeated sexual abuse and rape of his grandniece from ages 7 to 14. Sentences range from 6–45 years, run concurrently.
- Victim is learning disabled and diabetic; the abuse occurred at defendant’s farm and was disclosed to the grandmother in May 2015.
- Defendant sought to introduce evidence of the victim’s sexual activity with third persons to show (1) her alleged age-inappropriate sexual knowledge and (2) a motive to fabricate. Trial court excluded that evidence.
- Defendant also challenges defense counsel’s failure to object to testimony by a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) recounting the victim’s out-of-court statements about the abuse.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: (1) exclusion of third-party sexual-history evidence under Michigan’s rape-shield statute and as nonprobative, and (2) no ineffective assistance because the SANE statements were admissible under the medical-treatment hearsay exception and were nontestimonial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of victim’s sexual conduct with third persons | Evidence irrelevant and excluded by rape-shield statute; prejudicial | Evidence would show victim’s sexual knowledge came from peers and motive to fabricate | Exclusion affirmed: evidence not within rape-shield exceptions, not probative, and prejudicial |
| Confrontation right re: excluded sex-history evidence | No violation because evidence was not material to any issue; court held in-camera review and balanced rights | Admission was necessary to confront witness and impeach credibility | No constitutional right to admit the offered sex-history; in-camera process adequate; conviction affirmed |
| Admissibility of SANE testimony recounting victim’s statements | SANE statements were for medical diagnosis/treatment and nontestimonial; thus admissible under MRE 803(4) | Testimony was inadmissible hearsay/testimonial; counsel should have objected | SANE statements were nontestimonial and satisfied MRE 803(4); admissible |
| Ineffective assistance for failure to object to SANE testimony | Counsel not ineffective: objection would be meritless and statements admissible; no prejudice because victim testified fully | Counsel ineffective for failing to object to hearsay/testimonial statements, which prejudiced trial | No ineffective assistance: performance not objectively deficient and no reasonable probability of different outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gurshy, 486 Mich. 596 (de novo review of constitutional and preliminary admissibility questions)
- People v. Katt, 468 Mich. 272 (trial court discretion on evidentiary rulings)
- People v. Arenda, 416 Mich. 1 (rape-shield statute excludes other-person sexual conduct evidence)
- People v. Morse, 231 Mich. App. 424 (procedure for in-camera review when challenging rape-shield exclusions)
- People v. Hackett, 421 Mich. 338 (Confrontation Clause and rape-shield balancing; need for in-camera hearing)
- People v. Meeboer, 439 Mich. 310 (factors for trustworthiness of statements admitted under medical-treatment exception)
- People v. Garland, 286 Mich. App. 1 (victim statements to SANE admissible under MRE 803(4))
- People v. Duenaz, 306 Mich. App. 85 (application of rape-shield statute and MRE 803(4) in child-abuse context)
- People v. Smith, 425 Mich. 98 (witness vouching and credibility issues)