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 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 presenting evidence of the complainant’s prior sexual conduct. The district court agreed and ordered that such evidence could be elicited only through the same procedure applicable at trial. After the circuit court denied interlocutory review, the Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order. It held that MCL 750.520j’s procedural requirements do not apply during a preliminary examination because the statute requires a motion and offer of proof within 10 days after arraignment on the information. That arraignment occurs in the trial court only after the defendant has been bound over following a preliminary examination or has waived the examination.
The court emphasized that MRE 404(a)(2)(C), which contains parallel substantive restrictions governing evidence of an alleged victim’s prior sexual conduct, does apply at preliminary examinations because those proceedings must follow the Michigan Rules of Evidence. 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 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 requirements arise after arraignment on the information and therefore do not govern preliminary examinations.
- MRE 404(a)(2)(C) nevertheless governs the admissibility of evidence concerning an alleged victim’s prior sexual conduct at a preliminary examination.
- The court resolved only which legal authority applies and did 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 operate during a preliminary examination. Criminal practitioners need not follow MCL 750.520j’s motion deadline at that stage, but proposed evidence of prior sexual conduct remains subject to the Michigan Rules of Evidence.
The ruling also confirms that harmless-error review is inappropriate when an interlocutory appeal seeks to resolve a disputed legal issue before the lower court completes the proceeding or enters a judgment.