People of Michigan v. Walter Frank Steenbergh
330071
| Mich. Ct. App. | Mar 23, 2017Background
- Defendant Walter Steenbergh convicted of criminal sexual conduct; appeal raises ineffective assistance of counsel claims related to failure to consult/retain an expert regarding child memory/suggestibility and admissibility of nurse Threadgill’s testimony.
- Complainant (TB) had a prior sexual assault as a toddler and received counseling; she later disclosed the instant allegation only after her parents told her of an open investigation.
- Nurse Threadgill interviewed TB but acknowledged she did not perform a forensic interview nor inquire into the prior assault; much of her testimony described TB’s responses to specific, suggestive questions.
- Defense counsel knew of the prior assault (filed a discovery motion) but did not consult or retain any expert in clinical psychology, forensic interviewing, or child memory/suggestibility, and did not probe Threadgill’s questioning techniques at trial.
- The majority upheld admissibility of Threadgill’s testimony under MRE 803(4) and rejected an ineffective-assistance claim limited to hearsay objections; Judge Stephens (concurring in part, dissenting in part) concluded counsel was ineffective for failing to consult/retain any expert and would remand for further proceedings on prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether nurse Threadgill’s testimony was admissible under MRE 803(4) | Threadgill’s statements qualified as statements for medical diagnosis/treatment and were properly admitted | Testimony was hearsay and inadmissible | Majority: admissible under MRE 803(4) (no reversible error) |
| Whether failure to object to Threadgill’s testimony as hearsay was ineffective assistance | Counsel’s failure was not prejudicial; objection would not have changed outcome | Counsel was ineffective for not objecting to hearsay | Judge Stephens: counsel was not ineffective for failing to object on hearsay grounds (agrees with majority) |
| Whether defense counsel’s failure to consult/retain any expert on child memory/interviewing was ineffective assistance | Prosecution: no expert needed because case hinged on complainant credibility and Threadgill gave no expert opinion | Defendant: lack of any expert deprived him of substantial defense; prior assault and suggestive questioning required expert analysis; counsel should at least have consulted one expert | Judge Stephens: counsel’s failure to consult/retain an expert fell below objective reasonableness and remand is required to assess prejudice |
| Whether prejudice from lack of expert can be evaluated on record without further proceedings | Prosecution: record shows no need; defendant failed to produce expert proof | Defendant: record facts (prior assault, counseling, suggestive questioning) establish a factual predicate warranting expert development on remand | Judge Stephens: cannot determine prejudice on record; remand for further proceedings to determine whether new trial warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Meissner, 294 Mich. App. 438 (discussing right to effective assistance of counsel)
- People v Ackley, 497 Mich. 381 (attorney’s duty re: expert assistance and reasonableness of trial strategy)
- People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich. 38 (standards for strategic choices after investigation; quoting Strickland)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Hinton v. Alabama, 134 S. Ct. 1081 (duty to investigate or make reasonable decision that investigation unnecessary)
- People v Grant, 470 Mich. 477 (prejudice from inadequate investigation can require new trial)
- People v Agar, 314 Mich. App. 636 (remand ordered for showing how defense expert testimony would be material; later reviewed by Mich.)
- People v Kelly, 186 Mich. App. 524 (definition of "substantial defense")