The federal and state constitutions grant criminal suspects various protections to ensure their trials are conducted fairly. They have the right, for example, to cross-examine any witnesses who offer testimony against them. There are several exceptions to the general rule, though, as shown by a recent decision in a case where the defendant claimed the court accepted improper evidence in his domestic abuse trial. If you’ve been accused of domestic violence, it’s a good idea to speak with a Michigan criminal defense lawyer about your options.
The Defendant’s Arrest and Trial
It is reported that the suspect was charged with his third offense of domestic violence. The prosecutor introduced a statement provided by the defendant’s son during a preliminary investigation of another domestic abuse case involving the defendant into evidence during the trial. The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to a jail term ranging from thirteen to fifteen years. He appealed, claiming that the trial court erred by admitting his son’s statement into evidence, on the grounds that it violated his fundamental right to confront a witness against him.
The Right to Confront Witnesses
The court clarified on appeal that unless there is a misuse of discretion, a trial court’s decision that evidence should be admitted should not be overturned. A court commits an error of law or abuses its discretion when it makes a decision that is beyond the realm of just and fair outcomes.
Former testimony provided by a witness at another hearing is admissible at criminal trials under Michigan Rules of Evidence in certain instances, as an exception to the law against hearsay. The witness in question must be unavailable, and the defendant must have had a chance and similar motive to establish the witness’ testimony in a previous proceeding by direct, cross, or redirect questioning.
The court explained that the state and federal constitutions’ Confrontation Clauses grant criminal suspects the ability to challenge witnesses against them. It went on to say that statements are considered testimonial if their primary aim is to establish or show past actions that may be applicable to future criminal prosecution. It also stated that the use of preliminary examination evidence would not breach a criminal defendant’s right to confront prosecution witnesses.
The court explained that evidence from a prior preliminary examination is admissible because defense counsel had the opportunity to refine the testimony through cross-examination. Thus, the Confrontation Clause is upheld if a witness’s prior statement is admitted because it demonstrates ample evidence of authenticity. As a result, the court upheld the decision of the lower court.
Speak with a Skillful Criminal Defense Attorney in Michigan
Domestic abuse allegations can be damaging to a person’s reputation, and those accused of such crimes have the right to confront their accusers in most cases. If you’ve been charged with assault or any other domestic violence crime, you should consult with an attorney to learn about your legal options. Ellen Michaels of Ellen K. Michaels and Associates PLLC is a skillful Michigan criminal defense lawyer who can advise you of your rights and help you to seek a successful outcome. You can reach Ms. Michaels to schedule a meeting through the online form or by calling 248-202-3345.