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 <em><a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/20150325_S149372_122_01_149372_2015-03-25_or.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">People v. Tomasik</a></em>, No. 149371, the Michigan Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the trial court erred by (1) admitting a recording of the entire police interrogation; (2) admitting expert testimony regarding child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome under MRE 702; and (3) denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial based on newly disclosed impeachment evidence from a 2003 report concluding that the abuse victim tended to be dishonest.

contentpilot/introduction

In 2007, a jury convicted the defendant of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, MCL 750.520b(1)(a), stemming from the sexual abuse of a neighbor child. On appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court remanded to the trial court in light of <em>People v Stanaway</em>, 446 Mich 643 (1994), in which the Court held that when a defendant can establish reasonable probability that privileged records of a psychologist, sexual assault counselor, social worker, or juvenile diversion officer are likely to contain material information necessary to defense, the court must conduct in camera review of those records to ascertain whether they contain evidence that is reasonably necessary to defense. The defendant appealed after a new trial.

core/paragraph

The Court of Appeals held that the entire police interrogation was admissible because statements of the interrogator that implied that she believed the defendant was guilty were necessary to provide context of the defendant’s statements. It also held that the trial court did not err in allowing the expert testimony because there was no prohibited testimony that sexual abuse occurred, that the victim was telling the truth, or that the defendant was guilty. The Court of Appeals further held that denying the motion for a new trial based on newly discovered impeachment evidence was not erroneous because it was cumulative to the evidence presented at trial.&nbsp;

Partner

Madelaine C. Lane

Labor and Employment

MSC will consider whether trial court erred by admitting entire recording of interrogation and testimony regarding sexual abuse accommodation syndrome

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 will consider whether trial court erred by admitting entire recording of interrogation and testimony regarding sexual abuse accommodation syndrome

professionals