Background
Cyrus Naaseh Abadi was charged with first- and third-degree criminal sexual conduct based on allegations that he sexually assaulted the complainant, with whom he allegedly had previously been in a sexual relationship. The complainant also reported having consensual intercourse with another person approximately 72 hours before one of the alleged assaults.
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 past sexual conduct. The district court agreed and ordered that such evidence could be introduced only through the same procedure that would apply at trial. The circuit court denied interlocutory review, but the Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
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 in the trial court only after the defendant has been bound over following a preliminary examination or has waived that examination. The statutory procedure therefore applies only after the preliminary-examination stage.
The court emphasized that MRE 404(a)(2)(C), which contains parallel substantive restrictions governing evidence of a complainant’s prior sexual conduct, does apply at preliminary examinations because those proceedings are conducted under the Michigan Rules of Evidence. The panel did not decide whether Abadi’s proposed evidence was admissible under that rule. It also rejected the prosecution’s harmless-error argument because the interlocutory appeal sought resolution of a legal issue before any judgment or verdict had been entered.
The court reversed the district court’s order and did not retain jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- MCL 750.520j’s written-motion and offer-of-proof procedure does not apply at a preliminary examination because the statutory filing deadline runs from the later arraignment on the information.
- Evidence of a complainant’s past sexual conduct at a preliminary examination remains governed by the Michigan Rules of Evidence, including MRE 404(a)(2)(C).
- The court resolved only which legal framework applies and did not determine whether the particular evidence Abadi sought to introduce was admissible.
Why It Matters
The decision separates the rape-shield statute’s post-bindover filing procedure from the evidentiary restrictions that govern preliminary examinations. Defendants need not complete the statutory motion-and-offer-of-proof process before presenting qualifying evidence at that stage, but they must still satisfy the Michigan Rules of Evidence.
The ruling also underscores the role of interlocutory review in resolving procedural questions before a preliminary examination proceeds, when a conventional harmless-error inquiry following a judgment or verdict is premature.