Opinion
SC 165656 COA: 364673
10-30-2024
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROBIN JOSEPH PRESSEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Ottawa CC: 22-045113-FH
Elizabeth T. Clement, Chief Justice Brian K. Zahra David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein Megan K. Cavanagh Elizabeth M. Welch Kyra H. Bolden, Justices
ORDER
By order of August 22, 2023, the application for leave to appeal the April 20, 2023 order of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in People v Butler (Docket No. 165162). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on March 25, 2024, 513 Mich. 24 (2024), and on remand having been dismissed by the Court of Appeals on August 15, 2024 (Docket No. 359849), the application is again considered. Pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the January 4, 2023 opinion and order of the Ottawa Circuit Court and REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted.
On remand, while retaining jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals shall remand this case to the Ottawa Circuit Court for a determination of whether the defendant has made an initial" 'offer of proof as to the proposed evidence and to demonstrate its relevance to the purpose for which it is sought to be admitted.'" Butler, 513 Mich. at 30, quoting People v Hackett, 421 Mich. 338, 350 (1984). In making this determination, the trial court should follow this Court's guidance in Butler, 513 Mich. at 31-32. See also People v Williams, 191 Mich.App. 269, 273-274 (1991) (holding that an offer of proof was insufficient because "defense counsel had no idea whether the prior accusation was true or false and no basis for believing that the prior accusation was false" and instead "merely wished to engage in a fishing expedition in hopes of being able to uncover some basis for arguing that the prior accusation was false"). The Court of Appeals shall also direct that, if the trial court determines that the defendant has made the requisite offer of proof on any of the allegations, the trial court shall then do the following: (1) determine the appropriate standard of proof for the admissibility of evidence of prior false allegations of sexual assault by the complainant, see Butler, 513 Mich. at 33-34; (2) conduct an in camera evidentiary hearing under Hackett, 421 Mich. 338, to determine whether the defendant presents sufficient proof of the falsity of the relevant allegations at the evidentiary hearing to warrant admission of the evidence at trial in this case; and (3) if necessary, make a preliminary determination as to whether, and the extent to which, the evidence is otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence. We further ORDER that the stay entered by this Court on August 22, 2023, remains in effect until completion of this appeal. On motion of a party or on its own motion, the Court of Appeals may modify, set aside, or place conditions on the stay if it appears that the appeal is not being vigorously prosecuted or if other appropriate grounds appear.
We do not retain jurisdiction.