People of Michigan v. Nathaniel Morrice
326469
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 8, 2016Background
- Defendant Nathaniel Morrice, stepfather of victim HH, was convicted of three counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and one count of second-degree CSC for abuse occurring from age 5 to 12; sentences run concurrently and appeal followed.
- HH testified to progressive sexual abuse (touching over clothes at ~5; repeated oral sex from ~6; first penile/vaginal penetration at 12 with bleeding; additional vaginal acts and one anal act; last incident Oct. 2013).
- Dr. Stephen Guertin (child sexual-abuse expert) examined HH ~7 months after last alleged assault and found a deep notch and an abnormally wide hymenal opening, which he testified could be consistent with intrusive sexual injury.
- Defense theory centered on an alternative suspect, Dan Medina, a convicted sex offender who lived near HH; trial counsel explored Medina as an alternative perpetrator rather than aggressively impeaching Guertin’s medical opinions.
- Several contested evidentiary issues on appeal: exclusion/characterization of evidence related to Medina under the rape-shield statute; alleged ineffective assistance for counsel’s handling of Guertin’s testimony, hearsay statements to Guertin, and witnesses’ credibility-vouching.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rape-shield/Mediation evidence | People: trial court correctly handled jury question; defense never proffered underlying facts so no deprivation | Morrice: preclusion of evidence about Medina deprived his right to present a defense and was excluded under MCL 750.520j | Court: no deprivation; defendant never sought to admit underlying facts and jury question after close didn’t create reversible error |
| Counsel failed to challenge Guertin’s medical testimony | People: counsel reasonably accepted Guertin’s findings and pursued alternative-perpetrator strategy (Medina) | Morrice: counsel should have used literature or an expert to attack Guertin’s conclusions | Court: strategy was reasonable; failure to pursue alternate impeachment not shown to be deficient or prejudicial |
| Counsel failed to object to hearsay (statements HH made to Guertin and others) | People: some statements were admissible non-hearsay/context; Guertin’s statements admissible under medical-treatment analysis or harmless if erroneous | Morrice: admission of hearsay deprived him of fair trial; counsel ineffective for not objecting | Court: some Guertin statements were hearsay but admission was harmless given corroborating physical evidence and other testimony; no prejudice shown |
| Counsel failed to object to credibility-vouching (e.g., Detective Harrison) | People: isolated vouching by lay witnesses was reasonable strategy; Harrison’s elaboration was improper but not prejudicial | Morrice: counsel ineffective for not objecting to witnesses who vouched for HH’s truthfulness | Court: error in allowing Harrison’s credibility opinion, but no prejudice shown given physical corroboration and defense strategy focusing on Medina |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Adair, 452 Mich. 473 (defines rape-shield statute scope)
- People v Hackett, 421 Mich. 338 (Confrontation/right-to-present-defense exceptions)
- People v Meeboer, 439 Mich. 310 (framework for admitting statements made for medical diagnosis/treatment)
- People v Musser, 494 Mich. 337 (when out-of-court statements are not hearsay; expert/vouching limits)
- People v Vaughn, 491 Mich. 642 (standard for prejudice in ineffective-assistance claims)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong test)
- People v Douglas, 496 Mich. 557 (harmlessness of cumulative hearsay when corroborated)
- People v Bahoda, 448 Mich. 261 (trial strategy considerations about objecting and jury focus)
- People v Dobek, 274 Mich. App. 58 (prohibition on witnesses giving credibility opinions)