People v. Shaw
315 Mich. App. 668
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Defendant (stepfather) was convicted by a jury of nine counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct based on allegations the complainant was abused between ages 8–16; acquitted on one count.
- Complainant reported the abuse in 2011 at age 23; medical exam by Dr. Guertin occurred seven years after the last alleged incident.
- Defense filed a Ginther hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel; trial court denied relief after a 10-day hearing; appeal followed.
- Major trial errors alleged: trial counsel failed to object to multiple hearsay statements (family members, pediatrician Dr. Guertin, detective), failed to present evidence of complainant’s consensual sexual activity with a later boyfriend as an alternative source for physical findings, and the court allowed improper impeachment testimony (Officer Osborn recounting brother’s statement).
- Majority holds errors were prejudicial: hearsay and omission of rebuttal evidence undermined credibility contest central to the case, warranting Strickland relief and a new trial; concurrence flagged additional Daubert/MRE 702 gatekeeping concerns about the doctor’s qualifications; dissent would affirm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to multiple hearsay statements (family, Dr. Guertin, detective) | Hearsay improperly bolstered complainant’s credibility; counsel should have objected; cumulative, prejudicial effect | Counsel pursued tactical reasons (impeachment, highlighting inconsistency, connecting timeline); objections could harm strategy | Counsel was ineffective: failure to object to numerous inadmissible hearsay violated Strickland and likely affected outcome; reversal and new trial ordered |
| Whether statements to Dr. Guertin were admissible under MRE 803(4) (medical treatment exception) | Statements were investigatory (police referral), exam occurred 7 years later — not for treatment; not covered by MRE 803(4) | Prosecution argued statements were for medical evaluation/treatment; defense claimed tactical waiver | Majority: MRE 803(4) did not apply; counsel should have objected; admission was prejudicial; concurrence raised MRE 702 concerns about Guertin’s qualifications |
| Whether failure to present boyfriend’s testimony about consensual vaginal/anal sex was ineffective assistance | Testimony would provide alternative source for hymenal changes and anal fissure and was admissible under rape-shield exceptions; counsel failed to investigate/present | Counsel believed rape-shield barred it and/or relied on other record evidence (complainant’s own admissions, Guertin) as sufficient; calling boyfriend risked prejudice | Majority: counsel erred by not presenting admissible, material rebuttal evidence; reasonable probability of different result; ineffective assistance established |
| Whether admission of Officer Osborn’s testimony recounting brother’s statement (impeachment) was improper | Osborn’s testimony introduced substantive, inculpatory evidence under guise of impeachment and violated MRE 404(b)/403; no limiting instruction | Prosecution used impeachment doctrine; trial court allowed impeachment and gave no limiting instruction | Admission was improper and prejudicial; impeachment function misused to introduce substantive evidence; further supports new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (establishes two‑prong ineffective assistance standard)
- United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 (right to effective assistance of counsel)
- People v. Ginther, 390 Mich. 436 (procedure for evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance)
- People v. Stanaway, 446 Mich. 643 (limits on extrinsic impeachment and hearsay used as impeachment)
- People v. Jenkins, 450 Mich. 249 (extrinsic impeachment scope and caution about hearsay impeachment)
- People v. Gursky, 486 Mich. 596 (danger of hearsay in one-on-one credibility contests)
- People v. Meeboer, 439 Mich. 310 (MRE 803(4) rationale — statements for diagnosis/treatment)
- People v. Mahone, 294 Mich. App. 208 (application of medical‑treatment exception in sexual‑assault contexts)
- People v. VanderVliet, 444 Mich. 52 (MRE 404(b) admissibility framework)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (trial court’s gatekeeping role for expert reliability)