|
No. 138161
| People of the State of Michigan, |
|
Danielle Walton |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Oakland - Nichols, R.) |
|
|
| Anthony Marion Redd, |
|
Kevin Laidler |
Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Background
The complainant, an eighth grader, reported being sexually assaulted by Anthony Redd, her friend’s older brother. After interviewing the girl, a Pontiac police detective sent Redd a letter, generally outlining the complainant’s allegations and asking Redd to come to the police department for an interview. Redd did so, but, according to the detective’s later testimony at trial, was silent when asked to respond to certain accusations and left the interview abruptly. Redd was charged with one count of third-degree criminal sexual conduct and tried for that crime before a jury, which found Redd guilty as charged. Redd then filed a motion for a new trial. He contended that his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated, and that manifest injustice occurred, when the detective testified about Redd’s silence at and departure from the interview, and about Redd’s having been in jail in Tennessee. The prosecutor responded that Redd’s constitutional rights were not violated. Moreover, the trial court judge had cautioned the jury not to draw any improper inferences from Redd’s leaving the interview or choosing not to be interviewed, and Redd’s attorney had expressed satisfaction with those jury instructions, the prosecution argued. But the trial court granted Redd’s motion for a new trial, explaining “the Court finds that [the detective’s] testimony regarding [Redd’s] silence and leaving the interview after [being] asked about the accusations should not have been introduced in evidence and was clearly prejudicial to [Redd], constituting irreparable error and grounds to support reversal on this appeal – or this request.” In an unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling and reinstated Redd’s conviction. The Court of Appeals held that Redd waived any error and, in any case, Redd’s silence was not constitutionally protected. The Court of Appeals concluded that the rule set forth in People v Bigge, 288 Mich 417 (1939), was not violated because there had been “no oral, written, or nonverbal conduct intended as an assertion that defendant adopted as his own statement.” Redd appeals.
Top of Page
|
