People v. Johnson
315 Mich. App. 163
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant Jordan Johnson was convicted by a jury of four counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and one count of second-degree criminal sexual conduct for sexual abuse of his six-year-old niece; he received long prison terms.
- At trial the six-year-old victim and her 10-year-old brother testified while accompanied on the witness stand by a prosecutor-provided black Labrador ("Mr. Weeber"), identified in pretrial notice as a "canine advocate."
- Defense counsel told the court before trial he had no objection to the prosecution’s notice to use a support person/animal; no contemporaneous objection was made at trial to the dog’s presence.
- The victim made out-of-court statements to a sexual assault nurse examiner describing the abuse; the prosecution sought to admit those statements under the medical-treatment hearsay exception (MRE 803(4)).
- On appeal defendant raised multiple claims: the trial court lacked statutory authority to allow a support animal; counsel was ineffective for failing to object or seek procedural safeguards/limiting instructions; hearsay admission was improper; judicial bias; and errors in sentencing (costs/fine/restitution).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to allow support animal | Trial court had inherent authority to control courtroom; statutory notice did not admit error and defense waived objection | MCL 600.2163a(4) permits only a "support person," not an animal; court lacked statutory authority | Dog is not a "person" under statute, but trial court permissibly exercised inherent authority to allow a support animal; counsel’s failure to object was not ineffective because objection would be meritless and was waived by counsel’s prior assent |
| Due process / prejudice from dog’s presence | Use of support animal is neutral and less prejudicial than an adult support person; no showing of actual prejudice | Presence of dog undermined presumption of innocence and was inherently prejudicial | Procedure not inherently prejudicial; no evidence dog was visible/disruptive to jury; defendant failed to show actual prejudice |
| Counsel effectiveness re: procedural protections & limiting instruction | Counsel should have sought case-specific findings of necessity and a limiting jury instruction | Trial court required no Coy/Craig findings because Confrontation Clause not implicated; strategy and existing jury instruction against sympathy cured any error | No ineffective assistance: no mandatory findings required here; implicit facts supported use; no existing Michigan instruction made failure to request one nonprejudicial; jury instruction sufficed |
| Hearsay admission (MRE 803(4)) | Victim’s statements to nurse were admissible for medical diagnosis/treatment and were trustworthy | Statements were untrustworthy / initiated for prosecution purposes | Admission proper under MRE 803(4); Meeboer factors support trustworthiness; defense waived contemporaneous objection but alternate ineffective-assistance claim fails |
| Judicial bias | Trial judge had formed credibility views earlier; defense argues judge biased | Prior credibility rulings do not demonstrate disqualifying bias absent deep-seated favoritism | Motion to disqualify would be meritless; heavy presumption of impartiality not overcome |
| Sentencing: costs, fine, restitution | State sought court costs and $100 fine; restitution ordered including $900 for conduct not convicted | $100 fine and some restitution improper | Court erred imposing $100 fine (statutes for convictions here do not authorize fine); trial court must vacate $100 fine and reduce restitution by $900; otherwise convictions and sentences affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kowalski, 489 Mich. 488 (defense waiver doctrine on objections to trial procedures)
- Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560 (courtroom arrangements and the standard for inherent prejudice)
- Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012 (Confrontation Clause limits on special procedures; need for individualized findings when face-to-face right is curtailed)
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (permitting closed-circuit testimony for child witnesses when case-specific necessity shown)
- People v. Meeboer, 439 Mich. 310 (factors for assessing trustworthiness of child victim statements admitted under medical-treatment hearsay exception)
- People v. McKinley, 496 Mich. 410 (restitution must be tied to conduct underlying convictions)
- People v. Rose, 289 Mich. App. 499 (permissible courtroom procedures to assist child witnesses and trial court control of mode of witness interrogation)