People v. Grissom
492 Mich. 296
| Mich. | 2012Background
- This case concerns whether newly discovered impeachment evidence can support a new trial under the four-factor Cress test.
- Convictions: defendant was convicted of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct in a Meijer parking lot in 2001; credibility of the complainant was central.
- Newly discovered California police reports (Bakersfield and Fresno) surfaced two years post-conviction, alleging prior sexual assaults by others and related conduct by the complainant.
- Lower courts held impeachment evidence cannot ground a new trial; Court of Appeals affirmed denial, remanded for assessment under existing per se rules.
- Supreme Court clarifies that impeachment evidence may warrant a new trial if it satisfies Cress (exculpatory connection + different-result probability), and remands to trial court to apply the test.
- The concurrence/dissent discuss admissibility issues and potential evidentiary avenues (MRE 401/404(b), Stanaway, rape-shield considerations) on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May newly discovered impeachment evidence support a new trial under Cress? | Kelly argues it may if there is an exculpatory connection and probability of a different result. | Grissom argues impeachment evidence generally cannot warrant a new trial. | Yes, if Cress factors are met. |
| What is the required exculpatory connection for impeachment evidence under Cress? | Impeachment evidence can have a material exculpatory connection to trial testimony. | Impeachment evidence must be directly connected to a material matter or undermine critical inculpatory evidence. | There must be a material exculpatory connection to a material matter (not limited to direct contradiction). |
| Is the newly discovered evidence admissible on remand to test impact under Cress? | California reports may be admissible to test credibility and as basis for discovery of records (Stanaway); possible MRE 404(b) use. | Admissibility is uncertain due to hearsay and rape-shield concerns. | Remain to be determined on remand; evidentiary paths identified.} ,{ |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Cress, 468 Mich 678 (2003) (established four-factor test for new trials on newly discovered evidence; impeachment can satisfy it)
- Spray v Ayotte, 161 Mich 593 (1910) (impeachment-only evidence ordinarily does not warrant a new trial; rare exceptions)
- Barbara v. People, 400 Mich 352 (1977) (impeachment evidence may be significant when sole evidence of offense rests on a witness with questionable credibility)
- People v Armstrong, 490 Mich 281 (2011) (impeachment evidence affecting credibility can support a new trial when it impacts central issues)
- United States v Quiles, 618 F.3d 383 (2010) (requires strong exculpatory connection between new impeachment evidence and offense to warrant a new trial)
- United States v Saada, 212 F.3d 210 (2000) (illustrates the need for direct linkage between new evidence and core trial testimony)
- Napue v Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959) (recognizes jury’s assessment of credibility as pivotal to guilt)
- White v Coplan, 399 F.3d 18 (1st Cir. 2005) (impeachment evidence may be powerful when showing pattern of false allegations)
- Graham v Inskeep, 5 Mich App 514 (1967) (historical background on limits of new-trial based on impeachment)