People v. Mahone
294 Mich. App. 208
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Defendant and codefendant Burney were jointly tried and convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct and one count of unarmed robbery.
- The victim was a sex worker; the defense theory was that the sexual assault claim was fabricated in retaliation for theft and nonpayment.
- Defendants allegedly robbed the victim of her cell phone and computer and, after an interruption, committed the alleged sexual assault.
- The defense argued the interaction may have been consensual until the interruption, with Burney and defendant later taking money and property.
- The trial featured a credibility contest focused on the victim’s testimony, and the court admitted several pieces of challenged hearsay and medical-evidence statements.
- During deliberations, a juror experiencing distress was replaced with the alternate juror; the court instructed the jury to begin deliberations anew.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of officer's disturbance testimony | Hearsay about disturbance should be excluded | Any error harmless due to curative instructions | No reversible error; curative instructions adequate |
| Admissibility of vodka-bottle statement | Statement about vodka bottle is prejudicial hearsay | Potential harm, but not egregious; could have been struck | Not prejudicial; not reversible error |
| Reliance on MRE 801(d)(1)(B) for prior consistent statements | Coworker testimony is admissible as prior consistent statement | Fourth element not satisfied; motive to falsify arose earlier | Not admissible under 801(d)(1)(B) for motive to falsify |
| Admission of victim statements to nurse under MRE 803(4) | Medical-treatment statements are admissible | Potentially prejudicial but essential for treatment | Admissible under MRE 803(4) |
| Juror-removal and substitution with alternate juror | Removal risks coercion or prejudice to defendant | Removal could prejudice defendant; better record needed | No abuse of discretion; substitution did not prejudice defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Smith, 456 Mich 543 (1998) (abuse-of-discretion standard for preserved evidentiary error)
- People v. Unger, 278 Mich App 210 (2008) (abuse-of-discretion framework; harmless-error review)
- People v. Abraham, 256 Mich App 265 (2003) (instructions curing error presumed effective)
- People v. Barker, 161 Mich App 296 (1987) (unresponsive testimony; prejudice not shown absent egregiousness)
- People v. Waclawski, 286 Mich App 634 (2009) (unresponsive statements; need for curative instruction considerations)
- People v. Tate, 244 Mich App 553 (2001) (standards for juror-removal and deliberation procedures)