People of Michigan v. Tywon Deon Hamilton
329845
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 6, 2017Background
- Defendant Tywon Deon Hamilton was convicted of sexual abuse based primarily on the testimony of a minor victim (MD) and testimony from Miieshia Duhart recounting MD’s out-of-court disclosure.
- Defense challenged admission of Duhart’s testimony under MRE 803A (child’s corroborative statement hearsay exception), arguing MD had earlier told another adult (her godmother, Bridgette Coffee) before Duhart.
- The trial court allowed Duhart to testify without making a definitive preliminary factual finding whether MD’s statement to Duhart was MD’s first corroborative statement after the incident or holding an outside-the-jury MRE 104(a)/(c) hearing.
- MD’s testimony at trial conflicted with her earlier preliminary-examination testimony about whom she first told; defense used that inconsistency to impeach MD.
- Judge Riordan (concurring/dissenting in part) concluded the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Duhart’s testimony without the required preliminary finding and that the error was outcome determinative given the case was a credibility contest with little other corroboration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Duhart’s testimony under MRE 803A (was it MD’s first corroborative statement?) | Prosecution: Duhart’s testimony corroborates MD and was admissible under MRE 803A; timing and notice issues not dispositive. | Defense: MD previously told her godmother before Duhart; court failed to make required preliminary finding that Duhart’s account was the first corroborative statement. | Court (Riordan) — Trial court erred by admitting without making a preponderance-of-evidence finding under MRE 104(a); admission was reversible error. |
| Standard of review for admission challenge | Prosecution: Issue not preserved; thus review would be for plain error. | Defense: Objection preserved—standard is abuse of discretion and preliminary factual determinations reviewed de novo. | Court (Riordan) — Error preserved; apply abuse-of-discretion standard for admission and de novo for legal prelim questions. |
| Whether a hearing outside jury required under MRE 104(c) | Prosecution: No separate hearing necessary if evidence presented at trial suffices. | Defense: If trial court could not preliminarily determine admissibility on record, MRE 104(c) required an out-of-jury hearing. | Court (Riordan) — If insufficient record to decide, court should have conducted MRE 104(c) hearing outside jury. |
| Prejudice/harmlessness of erroneous admission | Prosecution: Any error was harmless given MD testified and was cross-examined; hearsay was cumulative. | Defense: Because case was a credibility contest with no physical corroboration and MD’s testimony inconsistent, the hearsay likely tipped scales and was outcome determinative. | Court (Riordan) — Error was not harmless; more probable than not it affected verdict; new trial required. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Aldrich, 246 Mich. App. 101 (foundation for preserved evidentiary challenges)
- People v. Mardlin, 487 Mich. 609 (standards for abuse of discretion and evidentiary rulings)
- People v. Orr, 275 Mich. App. 587 (abuse-of-discretion definition)
- People v. Sabin, 463 Mich. 43 (close evidentiary questions and appellate deference)
- People v. Burns, 494 Mich. 104 (harmless-error standard for preserved evidentiary errors)
- People v. Dunham, 220 Mich. App. 268 (MRE 803A and related evidentiary principles)
- People v. Douglas, 496 Mich. 557 (reversal where nonfirst corroborative child hearsay admitted and case was credibility contest)
- People v. Hendrickson, 459 Mich. 229 (MRE 104(a) preliminary-fact determinations by preponderance)
- People v. Gursky, 486 Mich. 596 (discussion of hearsay prejudice in credibility-contest cases)