in-camera hearing in Michigan

2025Morse outlines the test for cases in which a defendant seeks admission of a child-victim’s prior sexual conduct for purposes of explaining the victim’s age-inappropriate sexual knowledge: Michigan law dictates that an in-camera hearing is appropriate to determine whether: (1) defendant’s proffered evidence is relevant, (2) defendant can show that another person was convicted of criminal sexual conduct involving the complainants, and (3) the facts underlying the previous conviction are significantly similar to be relevant to the instant proceeding. [Morse, 231 Mich App at 437 .] Defendant fails

2018We again emphasize that in ruling on the admissibility of the proffered evidence, the trial court should rule against the admission of evidence of a complainant’s prior sexual conduct with third persons unless that ruling would unduly infringe on the defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation. [Id. at 350-351 (citations omitted).] In Morse, 231 Mich App at 437 , this Court considered what procedural safeguards were required to protect the interests of a young child and a defendant in a CSC case and held that -4- Michigan law dictates that an in-camera hearing is appropriate to determine

2016Cf. People v Williams, 191 Mich App 269, 273 ; 477 NW2d 877 (1991).

2016Cf. People v Williams, 191 Mich App 269, 273 ; 477 NW2d 877 (1991).