Background
Cyrus Naaseh Abadi was charged with first- and third-degree criminal sexual conduct based on allegations that he sexually assaulted a former girlfriend. The complainant also disclosed that she had consensual intercourse with another person approximately 72 hours before one of the alleged incidents.
At the preliminary examination, the prosecution argued that Michigan’s rape-shield statute, MCL 750.520j, required Abadi to file a written motion and offer of proof before introducing evidence of the complainant’s prior sexual conduct. The district court agreed and ruled that the statute’s procedures applied at the preliminary examination. After the circuit court denied interlocutory review, the Court of Appeals granted Abadi leave to appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed the district court. It held that MCL 750.520j’s procedural requirements do not apply during a preliminary examination because the statute requires a written motion and offer of proof within 10 days after arraignment on the information. That arraignment occurs only after the defendant has been bound over to circuit court, whereas the preliminary examination necessarily occurs or is waived before then.
The court explained that MRE 404(a)(2)(C), which contains parallel restrictions governing evidence of a complainant’s sexual conduct, does apply at preliminary examinations. The court did not decide whether the evidence Abadi sought to introduce was admissible under that rule. It also rejected the prosecution’s harmless-error argument because the case remained pending in district court and no judgment or verdict had been entered.
Key Takeaways
- The written-motion and offer-of-proof requirements in MCL 750.520j do not govern preliminary examinations.
- MRE 404(a)(2)(C) remains applicable when a defendant seeks to introduce evidence of a complainant’s sexual conduct at a preliminary examination.
- The decision resolves only which procedural authority applies; it does not determine whether Abadi’s proposed evidence is admissible.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes the rape-shield statute’s post-bindover filing procedure from the evidentiary restrictions that govern preliminary examinations. Michigan defendants need not satisfy MCL 750.520j’s written-motion procedure before offering covered evidence at that stage, but they remain subject to the Michigan Rules of Evidence.
The ruling also confirms that harmless-error review is inapposite when an interlocutory appeal seeks to resolve an evidentiary procedure before the preliminary examination is completed and before any judgment or verdict exists.