People v. Lucas

• Decision Date: 17 July 1987
• Docket Number: Docket No. 86789
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nolan K. LUCAS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 431

408 N.W.2d 431

160 Mich.App. 692

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Nolan K. LUCAS, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 86789.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Feb. 11, 1987.

Decided April 23, 1987.

Released for Publication July 17, 1987.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., John D. O'Hair, Pros. Atty., Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of Crim. Div., Research, Training and Appeals, and Jan J. Raven, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the people.

Mark H. Magidson, Detroit, for defendant on appeal.

Before SHEPHERD, P.J., and GRIBBS and LAMB, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In a bench trial, defendant was found guilty of two counts of criminal sexual conduct in the third degree, M.C.L. Sec. 750.520d; M.S.A. Sec. 28.788(4). On July 2, 1985, defendant was sentenced to a prison term of from 44 to 180 months. Defendant appeals by right, raising three issues, one of which requires reversal.

Defendant's defense at trial was consent. As of August 31, 1984, defendant and complainant had been boyfriend and girlfriend for approximately six to seven months. Complainant testified that they broke up two weeks before that date. On August 31, 1984, complainant stated that defendant, at knifepoint, forced her to his apartment. Complainant testified that she was physically beaten and forced to perform fellatio and have sexual intercourse and later that night defendant again forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. Complainant, however, did not leave defendant's home until 10:00 or 10:30 p.m. on September 1, 1984. It was defendant's position at trial that he and complainant had voluntary consensual sex three or four times and that he did not use a knife or other force.

At the start of trial, defendant moved for the introduction of evidence of the prior sexual relationship between defendant and complainant. Based solely upon the failure of defendant to comply with the notice provision of subsection 2 of the rape shield statute, M.C.L. Sec. 750.520j; M.S.A. Sec. 28.788(10), the trial court, without holding an in camera hearing to determine the admissibility of the proposed evidence, denied defendant's motion. This was clear legal error.

In People v. Williams, 95 Mich.App. 1, 9-11, 289 N.W.2d 863 (1980), rev'd on other grounds, 416 Mich. 25, 330 N.W.2d 823 (1982), this Court found the ten-day notice provision and any hearing requirement unconstitutional when applied to preclude evidence of specific instances of sexual conduct between a complainant and a defendant. The Court explained:

"The object behind imposition of a notice requirement is to allow the prosecution to investigate the validity of a defendant's claim so as to better prepare to combat it at trial. This rationale is sound when applied to notices of alibi and insanity defenses. It loses its logical underpinnings however when applied to the instant situation. As stated, the very nature of the evidence sought to be presented, i.e., prior instances of sexual conduct between a complainant and a codefendant, is personal between the parties. As such, it does not involve a subject matter that requires further witnesses to develop. An in camera hearing will necessarily focus on a complainant's word against the word of a codefendant. Requiring notice in this situation, then, would serve no useful purpose. There would be no witnesses to investigate and, thus, no necessity for preparation time. In view of the foregoing, we find that the trial court's denial of codefendant Williams' proffered evidence represents a consideration of form over substance. The evidence should have been admitted despite noncompliance with the notice provision. This ten-day notice provision loses its constitutional validity when applied to preclude evidence of previous relations between a complainant and a defendant." 95 Mich.App. at 10-11, 289 N.W.2d 863.

As noted by the Supreme Court in reversing the Court of Appeals, defendants in Williams sought to introduce evidence of prior sexual conduct between defendant Williams and the complainant on the...