Background
Cyrus Naaseh Abadi was charged with first- and third-degree criminal sexual conduct based on allegations involving a former girlfriend. The complainant reported assaults in 2023 and March 2024 and disclosed that she had consensual intercourse with another person approximately 72 hours before the alleged March 2024 assault.
At the preliminary examination, the prosecution argued that Michigan’s rape-shield statute required Abadi to file a written motion and offer of proof before presenting evidence of the complainant’s past sexual conduct. The district court agreed and ordered that such evidence could not be elicited without following the same procedure applicable at trial. The circuit court denied Abadi leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal, but the Court of Appeals granted leave.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the written-motion and offer-of-proof requirements in MCL 750.520j do not apply during a preliminary examination. The statute requires those filings within 10 days after arraignment on the information, which occurs only after the defendant has been bound over to circuit court and therefore after the preliminary examination has occurred or been waived.
The court emphasized that the Michigan Rules of Evidence still govern preliminary examinations. In particular, MRE 404(a)(2)(C) governs whether evidence of an alleged victim’s past sexual conduct may be introduced at that stage. The court did not decide whether Abadi’s proposed evidence was admissible under that rule. It rejected the prosecution’s harmless-error argument because the interlocutory appeal preceded any judgment or verdict and sought resolution of the legal issue before the preliminary examination continued.
Key Takeaways
- MCL 750.520j’s written-motion and offer-of-proof procedure applies after arraignment on the information, not during a preliminary examination.
- Evidence of an alleged victim’s past sexual conduct at a preliminary examination remains subject to the Michigan Rules of Evidence, including MRE 404(a)(2)(C).
- The court reversed the district court’s order but did not determine whether the particular evidence Abadi sought to present was admissible.
Why It Matters
The decision separates the rape-shield statute’s post-bindover filing procedure from the evidentiary rules governing preliminary examinations. Defendants need not satisfy MCL 750.520j’s motion procedure at that early stage, although they remain constrained by the Michigan Rules of Evidence.
The ruling also confirms that harmless-error review is inappropriate when an interlocutory appeal seeks to resolve an evidentiary procedure before the lower court completes the preliminary examination or enters a judgment.