Background
Cyrus Naaseh Abadi was charged with first- and third-degree criminal sexual conduct based on allegations by AS, with whom he allegedly had been in a relationship and had consensual sex. AS 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 introducing evidence of AS’s past sexual conduct. The district court agreed and ordered that such evidence could not be elicited until it had reviewed the proposed evidence. 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 procedural requirements of MCL 750.520j do not apply during a preliminary examination. The statute requires a defendant to file a written motion and offer of proof within 10 days after arraignment on the information. Because that arraignment occurs in the trial court only after the defendant has been bound over following, or has waived, the preliminary examination, the Legislature imposed the filing requirement only after the preliminary-examination stage.
The court emphasized that MRE 404(a)(2)(C), which contains parallel evidentiary restrictions, 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 this interlocutory appeal concerned proceedings that remained pending and stayed, not an existing judgment or verdict. 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 requirements do not govern evidence offered during a preliminary examination.
- MRE 404(a)(2)(C) nevertheless governs the admissibility of a complainant’s prior sexual conduct at a preliminary examination.
- The court resolved only which legal framework applies; it did not decide 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 limits that apply during a preliminary examination. Defendants need not satisfy MCL 750.520j’s motion-and-offer requirements before that hearing, but they remain subject to the Michigan Rules of Evidence.
The ruling also confirms that harmless-error review is not a basis for avoiding resolution of a disputed legal issue in an interlocutory appeal brought before the preliminary examination has concluded and before any judgment or verdict exists.