People v. Buie
291 Mich. App. 259
Mich. Ct. App.2011Background
- Defendant convicted of two counts of first-degree CSC involving victim BS and minors LS (age 13) and DS (age 9); three counts of first-degree CSC with weapon use; one count of firearm possession during felony.
- Trial evidence included two-way, interactive video testimony by Dr. Palusci and Rodney Wolfarth; defense objected to video testimony as violating confrontation rights.
- On remand from initial Buie decision, trial court held video use served state interests and that defendant consented; this was challenged on appeal.
- Appellate court previously remanded to assess good cause and consent under MCR 6.006(C), and the Supreme Court instructed findings on remand.
- Court ultimately vacated convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding video testimony violated defendant’s confrontation rights; opinion discusses two-prong Craig test and consent issues.
- Concurring opinion emphasizes the centrality of the confrontation right and rejects allowing counsel to waive over defendant’s objection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether video testimony violated Confrontation Clause | Buie and State argued interests outweighed right | Right to face-to-face confrontation is not outweighed | Plain error; video testimony reversed. |
| Whether public policy outweighed Confrontation Clause | Trial court found state interests/public policies | No compelling policy shown | No valid public policy outweighed the Confrontation Clause. |
| Whether defendant validly consented to video procedure | Counsel consented on behalf of defendant | Consent not valid due to client objection | Consent invalid; plain error. |
| Whether MCR 6.006(C) allows defense consent over objection | Rule permits party consent; counsel could consent | Counsel cannot waive over client’s objection | Cannot be waived by counsel over objection. |
| Whether reversal warranted given plain error | Video essential to proving identity and CODIS match | Error affected fairness; warrants reversal | Yes; convictions vacated and remanded for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) (two-prong test balancing confrontation with public policy)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (confrontation clause guarantees and cross-examination importance)
- Buie v. People, 285 Mich. App. 401 (2009) (reversed where public policy insufficient to outweigh confrontation rights; remand for findings)
- Pesquera v. People, 244 Mich. App. 305 (2001) (protecting victim witness from trauma; confrontation considerations)
- Burton v. People, 219 Mich. App. 278 (1996) (confrontation rights and public policy considerations)
- Lawson v. People, 124 Mich. App. 371 (1983) (defense waiver of confrontation rights by counsel discussed)
- Cooks v. Michigan, 446 Mich. 503 (1994) (confrontation clause jurisprudence cited)