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

The Michigan Supreme Court scheduled mini-oral argument to decide whether to grant leave to appeal in <a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/20151009_S151899_59_01_151899_2015-10-09_or.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">People v. Uribe</a>, No. 151899.  This criminal appeal concerns the question of whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the admission of testimony, under MCL 768,27a, that the defendant had molested another young victim, because the court found that the abuse was “dissimilar” to the abuse alleged in this case. Additionally, the Court has ordered the parties to address whether the <a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/opinions/final/coa/20150512_c321012_50_321012.opn.pdf">Court of Appeals</a> properly applied People v. Watkins, which held that MRE 403’s exclusionary power should be used even more sparingly in the context of evidentiary determinations made pursuant to MCL 768.27a, in reversing the trial court’s ruling.

contentpilot/introduction

Defendant was charged with five counts of criminal sexual conduct for molesting his daughter’s half-sister.&nbsp; The prosecution sought to introduce evidence that the defendant had also molested his daughter under MCL 768.27a, which allows the prosecution to present any evidence that the defendant committed other sex crimes against for the express purpose of demonstrating that the defendant has a propensity to molest children.&nbsp; The trial court held that the evidence was barred under MRE 403 because the sexual abuse against his daughter was “dissimilar” to the sexual abuse in this case.

core/paragraph

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision.&nbsp; In doing so, the court relied upon the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Watkins, 491 Mich. 450 (2012), which held that MRE 403’s exclusionary power should be used even more sparingly in the context of evidentiary determinations made pursuant to MCL 768.27a. &nbsp;The Court reasoned MCL 768.27a represents a clear public policy to admit specific evidence to protect children from sexual predators.

The Michigan Supreme Court granted mini-oral argument to determine whether to grant leave to appeal the Court of Appeals’ decision.

Partner

Madelaine C. Lane

Labor and Employment

MSC to hear mini-oral argument on whether evidence of “dissimilar” acts of sexual abuse is admissible in CSC case

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.

MSC to hear mini-oral argument on whether evidence of “dissimilar” acts of sexual abuse is admissible in CSC case

professionals