People of Michigan v. Ryan Douglas Whitson
330446
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 13, 2017Background
- Defendant Ryan Whitson was convicted by a jury of three counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct (CSC-I) and two counts of third-degree CSC for repeatedly molesting his daughters MW and RW beginning when they were ~9; assaults continued after family moved to Michigan.
- MW disclosed the abuse in 2014, prompting RW to report similar abuse; both testified at trial about vaginal intercourse and fellatio by defendant.
- The prosecutor had endorsed NS as a witness who allegedly had a sexual relationship with defendant at age 14; NS was subpoenaed but did not appear at trial and defense counsel did not object to her absence.
- Dr. Dena Nazer examined MW and RW; RW’s exam was normal, MW’s was described as an "indeterminate/supportive" finding—supportive of disclosure but not definitively abnormal.
- The trial court excluded defense inquiry into MW’s other sexual activity under Michigan’s rape‑shield statute (MCL 750.520j); defendant was sentenced to lengthy prison terms and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecution’s failure to produce endorsed witness (NS) | Prosecutor complied with duties; evidence about NS was presented through other witnesses and court instructed jury on missing witness | Nonproduction prejudiced defense; court should have held evidentiary hearing, declared mistrial or given stronger remedy | No plain‑error relief: issue unpreserved, record doesn’t show due‑diligence violation, court gave a missing‑witness instruction which cured prejudice |
| Exclusion under rape‑shield statute of MW’s other sexual activity | Exclusion proper under MCL 750.520j and procedure; defense failed to follow written‑notice rule | Evidence was admissible rebuttal to explain Dr. Nazer’s "indeterminate" finding and necessary for confrontation | Any error in exclusion harmless: medical finding was inconclusive, victim testimony was strong, and outcome likely unchanged |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain‑error standard for unpreserved claims)
- People v Duenaz, 306 Mich. App. 85 (prosecutor’s duty when endorsing witnesses under MCL 767.40a(3))
- People v Eccles, 260 Mich. App. 379 (due diligence standard for producing endorsed witnesses)
- People v Perez, 469 Mich. 415 (missing‑witness instruction may be appropriate for MCL 767.40a violations)
- People v McLaughlin, 258 Mich. App. 635 (written‑notice requirement and rape‑shield analysis)
- People v Shaw, 315 Mich. App. 668 (admissibility of other sexual‑conduct evidence to explain physical findings)
- People v Mikula, 84 Mich. App. 108 (evidence of prior sexual activity may rebut physical‑condition evidence)
- People v Hackett, 421 Mich. 338 (rape‑shield statute’s limits and balancing to protect confrontation rights)
- People v Brantley, 296 Mich. App. 546 (complainant’s testimony alone can support CSC conviction)