|
No. 127129
| The People of the State of Michigan, |
|
Robert Berlin |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
Betsy B. Mellos |
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Macomb - Chrzanowski, M.) |
|
|
| Gennaro Joseph Piscopo, |
|
David A. Dodge |
| Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Reply Brief>>
Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
A pastor at a Pentecostal church in Roseville was accused of sexually groping women during a church ritual known as the “deliverance,” a form of exorcism. Before this ritual, the complainant had filled out a questionnaire in which she indicated that she had been sexually abused by her pastor father throughout her youth and that she had been raped by a demon living in her attic. At trial, the court denied the defendant’s request to present this questionnaire to the jury and to cross-examine the complainant about it. Citing Michigan Rules of Evidence 401 and 402, the trial court reasoned that since the complainant filled out the questionnaire before the alleged assault, the statements were not relevant as to whether the assault occurred or whether the complainant was credible. The trial court also concluded that the questionnaire’s contents were more prejudicial than probative and that the complainant had never intended for the intimate details in the document to become public. MRE 803(6), the business-records exception, did not authorize admission of the questionnaire, especially where the questionnaire was not inherently trustworthy, the court added. Finally, the trial court ruled that the statements referred to the complainant’s past sexual conduct or past sexual activity and were inadmissible under the rape-shield law. The listed exceptions contained in the law were not applicable, said the judge, and the evidence was therefore barred by the statute. The trial court also refused to permit an expert on the effects of extreme stress on perceptions to testify for the defendant pastor, because the expert was unfamiliar with the “deliverance” ritual. The defendant was convicted of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct and appealed, but the Court of Appeals saw no abuse of discretion and affirmed his conviction in an unpublished opinion. The defendant “failed to demonstrate that the evidence [contained in the questionnaire] was necessary to protect his right to confront the witness,” the Court of Appeals stated. The appellate court concluded that the trial court “properly excluded the questionnaire evidence as irrelevant and contrary to the rape-shield laws.” As for the trial court’s decision to exclude the testimony of the defendant’s proposed expert, the Court of Appeals agreed that the expert’s lack of familiarity with the “deliverance” ritual prevented her from testifying. The defendant appeals.
Top of Page
|
