Sign In

161243 - People v Shane Jeremy Hawkins

The People of the State of Michigan,


Alexis Gipson-Goodnough





(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)



(Monroe – Weipert, M.)


Shane Jeremy Hawkins,


Adrienne Young





Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of two counts of third-degree criminal sexual conduct and one count of accosting, enticing, or soliciting the 14-year-old complainant.  At trial, the complainant testified that the defendant forcibly penetrated her, but the defendant testified that nothing happened.  Without objection, the officer-in-charge of the case, Detective Boczar, testified that he had specialized training in the statewide protocol for the forensic interviewing of child sexual assault victims and that the complainant’s allegations against the defendant seemed authentic to him.  He also testified that, based on his investigation, the defendant’s explanation for why the complainant made the allegations was not true.  The Court of Appeals found that although Detective Boczar’s testimony was improper, the defendant had failed to establish that, but for trial defense counsel’s failure to object to the testimony, there was a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different.  The Supreme Court has ordered oral argument on the application to address whether there is a reasonable probability that, but for trial defense counsel’s failure to object to Detective Boczar’s testimony, the outcome of this trial would have been different.  Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 694 (1984).​