Background
Cameron Michael Galey and Reagan Marhofer began dating in 2022 and regularly engaged in consensual sexual activity. Marhofer later alleged that Galey forced or coerced sexual penetration on several occasions, including by continuing after she expressed pain or withdrew consent. Galey denied ever penetrating her without consent and testified that he stopped or changed positions when she reported pain.
Galey was charged with three counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. He sought to introduce contemporaneous text messages in which Marhofer expressed intense affection for him, enthusiasm about their sexual relationship, and plans for a future together. The trial court excluded the messages as hearsay and under Michigan Rule of Evidence 403, allowing limited use only to refresh recollection. The jury convicted Galey on two counts, deadlocked on the third, and the court sentenced him to concurrent prison terms of 6 to 15 years.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the evidentiary issue was preserved and that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the text messages. Because the messages reflected Marhofer’s then-existing mental and emotional condition during the period of the alleged offenses, they fell squarely within the state-of-mind hearsay exception in MRE 803(3).
The court also held that the messages’ probative value was not substantially outweighed by any danger identified in MRE 403. They were highly probative of the central disputed question—whether Galey used force or coercion—and directly bore on the prosecution’s primary evidence, Marhofer’s testimony. The error was more probably than not outcome determinative, particularly because the jury requested the texts during deliberations, initially reported a deadlock, and ultimately remained deadlocked on one count. The court vacated Galey’s convictions and sentences and remanded the case to the trial court.
Key Takeaways
- Contemporaneous statements describing a declarant’s existing mental or emotional condition may be admissible under MRE 803(3), even when offered through the declarant’s text messages.
- Highly probative defense evidence cannot be excluded under MRE 403 merely because it damages the prosecution’s case; the danger must be one of unfair prejudice or another concern listed in the rule, and it must substantially outweigh probative value.
- The jury’s request for excluded evidence and difficulty reaching a verdict supported the conclusion that the evidentiary error likely affected the outcome.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that courts must evaluate electronic communications according to their evidentiary purpose and the applicable hearsay exceptions. In a credibility-driven prosecution where force or coercion is the central dispute, contemporaneous communications bearing on the complainant’s state of mind can be critical defense evidence.
The opinion also illustrates how the course of jury deliberations may inform harmless-error review. Here, the request to see the excluded texts and the jury’s repeated difficulty reaching unanimity reinforced the conclusion that excluding the messages undermined the reliability of the verdict.