Right of confrontation; U.S. Const. amend. VI; Const. 1963, art. 1, § 20; People v. King; People v. Nunley; Right of cross-examination; People v. Gaines; Scope of cross-examination; People v. Morton; Witness bias; People v. McGhee; Principle that criminal defendants may cross-examine witnesses about potential civil lawsuits in order to discredit the witness by exposing bias or an ulterior motive; People v. Adamski; People v. Grisham; Due process; Right to present a defense; People v. Solloway; People v. Unger; Relevance; MRE 401; People v. Mann; People v. Watkins

The court held that the trial court erred by excluding all evidence of the alleged victim’s possible desire to bring a civil lawsuit against the defendant, but did not err by excluding evidence of photographs of the alleged victim posted to her Facebook page. Defendant was charged with CSC IV. The trial ended in a hung jury, and a new trial was scheduled. After the trial court rendered its decision on two evidentiary motions, the court granted an interlocutory appeal. It first agreed with defendant that the trial court erred in granting the prosecution’s motion to exclude evidence that the alleged victim intended to file a civil lawsuit against defendant. Defendant contended that her sexual assault allegations “stemmed from her motivation to collect money damages” in a civil lawsuit, and that he should be able to cross-examine her about it. “Defendant will be denied his right to confront his accuser if he is prevented from cross-examining [her] about her intent to bring a civil lawsuit against” him. However, the court disagreed with defendant’s contention that the trial court erred when it denied his motion in limine and refused to admit three photographs the alleged victim posted to her Facebook page. He claimed that the photos show that she “drastically changed her appearance” for purposes of trial, and that the failure to admit them constituted a deprivation of his right to present a defense. “The obvious, and improper purpose is to suggest that [she] is a licentious woman who was likely to provoke or consent to defendant’s sexual advances.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.