People v. Green
313 Mich. App. 526
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Defendant Gabriel Lee Green was a DHS child protective services (CPS) worker assigned to investigate neglect/abuse complaints involving complainants JG and JB.
- JG testified that during an investigation Green massaged her, digitally penetrated her, and later engaged in oral sex and intercourse; she testified she consented only because she feared losing her child.
- JB testified Green massaged her shoulders and inner thighs and then engaged in sexual contact; she was upset and said the acts occurred while he was investigating her.
- A jury acquitted Green of six CSC III counts but convicted him of three CSC III counts (force or coercion) as to JG and one CSC IV count (force or coercion) as to JB.
- Trial court sentenced Green to concurrent 5–15 year terms for CSC III counts and 12 months for CSC IV. Green appealed, raising evidentiary and sufficiency/great-weight challenges.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (inter alia) that the CPS position can supply the ‘‘coercion’’ element and that trial evidentiary rulings were not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sufficiency of preliminary-examination evidence to bind over CSC III/IV | People: defendant was fairly convicted at trial, so bindover sufficiency need not be reviewed. | Green: preliminary hearing evidence was insufficient to bind over charges. | Court: decline to review bindover sufficiency because defendant was fairly convicted at trial. |
| 2. Restriction of cross-examination and exclusion of prior inconsistent testimony under MRE 801(d)(1)(A) (JG) | People: trial counsel was permitted to impeach with preliminary testimony; excluded portions were not truly inconsistent. | Green: court improperly limited cross-examination and refused to admit prior testimony as substantive inconsistent statements. | Court: no abuse of discretion; preliminary testimony was either used for impeachment or not genuinely inconsistent with trial testimony. |
| 3. Admission of JB’s statements as excited utterances under MRE 803(2) | People: statements to stepdaughter and mother were contemporaneous, made under stress, and related to the startling events; admissible. | Green: statements were not excited utterances and should have been excluded. | Court: no abuse of discretion admitting the statements as excited utterances. |
| 4. Cumulative evidentiary error and convictions against the great weight of the evidence | People: evidence, including coercion via abuse of CPS authority, supported convictions; no cumulative errors. | Green: multiple evidentiary errors and weak evidence warrant reversal/new trial. | Court: no cumulative error; evidence did not preponderate heavily against verdicts; convictions affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Wilson, 469 Mich 1018 (discusses restriction on reviewing preliminary-exam sufficiency when fairly convicted)
- People v Hall, 435 Mich 599 (preliminary-exam evidentiary errors do not automatically require reversal absent prejudice at trial)
- People v Chavies, 234 Mich App 274 (defines inconsistency for impeachment and prior statements rule)
- People v Orr, 275 Mich App 587 (standard for abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings)
- People v Premo, 213 Mich App 406 (position-of-authority coercion—teacher context—can satisfy force/coercion)
- People v Knapp, 244 Mich App 361 (abuse of authority/coercion where defendant exploited a vulnerable relationship)
- People v Smith, 456 Mich 543 (explains excited-utterance doctrine and court's discretion)
- People v Straight, 430 Mich 418 (excited-utterance admissibility factors)
- People v Perkins, 468 Mich 448 (distinguishing consensual authority-figure relationships where no coercion shown)
- People v Lemmon, 456 Mich 625 (standard for reviewing great-weight claims)