Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

In People v. Sardy, <a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20151229_C319227_66_319227.OPN.PDF" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">No. 319227</a>, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that when a party fails to object to a child-witness’s unsworn testimony and allows the testimony to be fully developed, that party waives the swearing of the witness. MRE 603 and MCL 600.1434 require that a witness prior to testifying declare that he or she will testify truthfully. Further, Michigan Model Criminal Jury Instruction 5.9 provides that for a witness who is a young child, a promise to tell the truth satisfies the oath requirement. However, the primary question addressed by the Court of Appeals in Sardy was how to treat a failure of the prosecution to attain a promise or affirmation to tell the truth from a testifying child-victim.

contentpilot/introduction

Defendant was convicted of multiple sexually abusive conduct charges related to acts done to his daughter. Upon appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that his rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated because the prosecutor failed to have the child-victim declare at the preliminary examination—from which the victim’s testimony was admitted at trial—by oath or affirmation that she would testify truthfully. As Defendant did not provide an articulated legal justification for why this failure was an error, the Court of Appeals rejected a structural-error approach in favor of a waiver approach. The Court reasoned that Michigan Supreme Court precedent provides that a waiver occurs when a party fails to object at the time to a witness testifying without being sworn in and a structural-error approach is inconsistent with case law.

core/paragraph

The Court of Appeals acknowledged, however, that a waiver analysis here is inconsistent with People v. Carter, a recent Michigan Supreme Court case. In Carter, the Supreme Court held that a waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right, while a forfeiture is a mere failure to make a timely assertion of a right that does not extinguish the error. As defense counsel here unintentionally failed to timely assert the right, this is arguably a forfeiture under Carter—making the error appropriate for review upon appeal. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals rejected a forfeiture approach but held that even applying the Carter rationale, no plain error resulted from failing to acquire the pre-testimony promise or affirmation. The Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction, but remanded to address a sentencing matter under People v. Lockridge. Judge Stephens <a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20151229_C319227_67_319227C.OPN.PDF" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">concurred</a>, arguing that Carter controlled and that the failure to object constituted a forfeiture, not a waiver.

Partner

Madelaine C. Lane

Labor and Employment

Failure to timely object to child-witness’s unsworn testimony constitutes waiver, not forfeiture, despite contrary precedent

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000.

Failure to timely object to child-witness’s unsworn testimony constitutes waiver, not forfeiture, despite contrary precedent

professionals