People v. Stubli

• Decision Date: 28 October 1987
• Docket Number: Docket No. 94168
• Citation: 413 N.W.2d 804,163 Mich.App. 376
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dean Raymond STUBLI, Defendant-Appellant. 163 Mich.App. 376, 413 N.W.2d 804

Page 804

413 N.W.2d 804

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dean Raymond STUBLI, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 94168.

163 Mich.App. 376, 413 N.W.2d 804

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted April 14, 1987.

Decided Sept. 22, 1987.

Released for Publication Oct. 28, 1987.

[163 MICHAPP 377] Lineas L. Baze, Jackson, for defendant on appeal.

Before CYNAR, P.J., and SHEPHERD and JASPER, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of two counts of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree, M.C.L. Sec. 750.520b; M.S.A. [163 MICHAPP 378] Sec. 28.788(2). Defendant was sentenced to a term of from twenty to thirty years imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently. Defendant appeals as of right. We reverse.

On the evening of June 24, 1985, defendant picked up two twelve-year-old girls, and took them for a ride in his automobile on the pretext that he was escorting them to a party. Defendant drove his car to a cornfield and parked. At this point, the testimony becomes conflicting.

The girls claim that shortly thereafter he engaged in sexual intercourse with one in the vehicle while the other remained outside. Subsequently, the other girl entered the car and defendant placed his finger in her vagina and forced her to perform fellatio on him. Then he took the girls home. Defendant denies that he engaged in any sexual contact with the two girls. Additionally, there was other testimony that the girls may have fabricated the story about what happened at the cornfield.

Defendant raises several issues on appeal, one of which is meritorious and dispositive. He contends that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because counsel failed to object to the testimony of defendant's wife in violation of the marital privilege, his lawyer failed to call three witnesses favorable to his defense, and counsel failed to request severance of the two cases.

In People v. Garcia, 398 Mich. 250, 264-266, 247 N.W.2d 547 (1976), reh. den. 399 Mich. 1041 (1977), the Supreme Court established a bifurcated test for ineffective assistance of counsel claims. First, defense counsel must perform at least as well as a lawyer with ordinary training and skill in the criminal law. Second, even though the first test is satisfied, counsel must not make a serious mistake [163 MICHAPP 379] but for which the defendant would have a reasonably likely chance of acquittal.

Generally, a motion for a new trial or for an evidentiary hearing is a prerequisite for appellate review unless the error is apparent from the record to permit this Court to decide the issue. People v. Juarez, 158 Mich.App. 66, 73, 404 N.W.2d 222 (1987). Trial counsel is presumed to have afforded effective assistance. This presumption can only be overcome by a showing of counsel's failure to perform an essential duty, which failure was prejudicial to the defendant. The burden is on the defendant. Id., p. 73, 404 N.W.2d 222; People v. Carr, 141 Mich.App. 442, 367 N.W.2d 407 (1985).

Defendant contends that counsel was ineffective because he did not invoke defendant's marital privilege and prevent his wife from testifying as a witness for the prosecution. We agree.

The marital privilege is codified in M.C.L. Sec. 600.2162; M.S.A. Sec. 27A.2162, which provides in pertinent part:

"A husband shall not be examined as a witness for or against his wife without her consent; nor a wife for or against her husband without his consent, ... nor shall either, during the marriage or afterwards, without the consent of both, be examined as to any communication made by one to the other during the marriage...."

The statute codified the common-law "spousal privilege" and the "confidential communication privilege." The spousal privilege precludes spousal testimony. The privilege can be asserted only while the spouses are legally married. It precludes all testimony regardless of whether the events at issue occurred before or during the marriage. People v. Love, 425 Mich. 691, 696, 391 N.W.2d 738 (1986).

[163 MICHAPP 380] The communication privilege applies to confidential communications made within the marital relationship irrespective of the marital status of the parties at the time of trial. People v. Wadkins, 101 Mich.App. 272, 282, 300 N.W.2d 542 (1980); People v. Hamacher, 150 Mich.App. 671, 673, 389 N.W.2d 477 (1986), lv. den. 426 Mich. 867 (1986). This privilege requires the consent of both parties.

Both of the privileges apply in this case. The people argue that defendant waived this privilege. Our review of the Ginther ¹ hearing record does not support a finding of a waiver of the marital privilege. The record is totally inadequate in providing an explanation as to why defense counsel permitted defendant's wife to testify on behalf of the prosecution. Moreover, even if we conclude that defendant waived this privilege, counsel should never have advised waiver since the wife's testimony was very damaging. She testified that defendant told her he had made a move toward having intercourse with one of the girls by undoing his pants, but then stopped. The jury could conclude that if he told his wife that he went this far, he probably went even further. We see nothing in the record which reflects legitimate trial strategy. Thus, defendant's convictions must be reversed.

As to the other claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we find no merit.

At the Ginther hearing, defense counsel testified that he did not call witnesses Christina Bethel, Stephanie Fox and Robin Baldwin because he determined that two of the three, Bethel and Fox, could not withstand cross-examination, thereby producing more...