People v. Douglas
496 Mich. 557
Mich.2014Background
- Defendant Jeffery Douglas was tried for CSC-I and CSC-II based on allegations by his then‑3-year-old daughter (KD) that he made her perform fellatio and touch his penis; no physical or third‑party corroboration existed.
- KD disclosed to her mother (Brodie), then to a therapist and to a forensic interviewer (Jennifer Wheeler); CPS investigated and petitioned for protective proceedings; statements from the forensic interview were recorded.
- At trial the prosecution presented KD’s in‑court testimony, Brodie, the forensic interviewer (Wheeler) who also played the forensic‑interview video, a detective (Muir), a CPS worker (Fallone), and a trooper; defendant testified and the jury convicted.
- Trial counsel rejected two pretrial plea offers; postconviction the court learned the applicable statute carried a 25‑year mandatory minimum for CSC‑I, prompting competing motions including defendant’s claim for a new trial and reinstatement of a plea offer based on ineffective assistance.
- The Court of Appeals ordered a new trial and reinstatement of the prosecution’s plea offer; the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the new‑trial relief but reversed as to reinstatement, remanding for proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of KD’s statements to the forensic interviewer (MRE 803A / MRE 803(24)) | Prosecution: statements admissible under the tender‑years rule (803A) or the residual exception (803(24)). | Douglas: statements inadmissible — not first corroborative statement as to fellatio and lacked trustworthiness for residual exception. | Court: error to admit fellatio disclosure under 803A (not first corroborative statement) and 803(24) did not save it; admission prejudicial — new trial warranted. |
| Vouching/opinion testimony by witnesses (Wheeler, Fallone, Muir) | Prosecution: testimony provided context or described consistency with abuse; some contested as proper expert opinion under Peterson. | Douglas: witnesses impermissibly vouched for KD’s credibility; counsel ineffective for not objecting. | Court: testimony impermissibly vouched for credibility; defense counsel ineffective for failing to object; prejudice established — supports new trial. |
| Pretrial ineffective assistance re: plea advice (Lafler/Strickland) | Defendant: counsel misadvised about sentencing exposure (failed to inform of 25‑year mandatory minimum) and consequences of registration, so would have accepted plea; seeks reinstatement. | Prosecution/trial court: counsel’s advice deficient but defendant failed to prove prejudice — he consistently maintained innocence and likely would not have accepted pleas. | Court: counsel’s advice was deficient but trial court did not clearly err in finding defendant failed to prove prejudice; reinstatement of plea offer not required. |
| Remedy where both evidentiary error and counsel ineffectiveness occurred | Defendant: new trial and reinstatement of plea offer. | Prosecution: at most a new trial; plea reinstatement unwarranted. | Court: new trial ordered (affirming Court of Appeals on that point); reversal as to mandatory reinstatement of plea offer; remand for further proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Musser, 494 Mich. 337 (trial court admission reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- People v. Gursky, 486 Mich. 596 (scope and limits of MRE 803A and harm analysis for hearsay in child‑sex cases)
- People v. Katt, 468 Mich. 272 (analysis of residual hearsay exception MRE 803(24) and ‘‘most probative evidence’’ requirement)
- People v. Krueger, 466 Mich. 50 (presumption against reversal for nonconstitutional evidentiary error unless outcome determinative)
- People v. Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich. 38 (standard for reviewing ineffective‑assistance claims; mixed question of fact and law)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (remedy framework for ineffective assistance during plea bargaining)
- Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (counsel’s obligation to inform defendant of deportation and other collateral consequences — cited for plea advice principle)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two‑prong ineffective‑assistance test)
- People v. Peterson, 450 Mich. 349 (limits on experts vouching for victim; when expert may describe behavior consistent with abuse)
- People v. Anderson, 446 Mich. 392 (harm analysis where corroborating testimony may tip scales in credibility contests)