Evidence of prior allegations in a CSC case; The rape-shield statute (MCL 750.520j); Trial court’s finding that the allegations were not false

Concluding that the “trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant’s motion to admit evidence” in this CSC case, the court affirmed. The case arose after two “children reported sexual abuse by their stepgrandfather, defendant.” He is charged with CSC II. He contended “that the trial court clearly erred by finding that [complainant-]JF’s 2017 allegations” against her stepfather (defendant’s son) “were ‘true, not false’ because JF admitted that those allegations were fabricated.” The court held that because “the trial court found that JF’s 2017 allegations of sexual abuse against her stepfather were ‘true’ on the basis of JF’s ‘demeanor, presentation, and stated reasons for lying,’ the trial court did not clearly err by finding that JF’s 2017 allegations were true.” It concluded that contrary “to defendant’s assertions, JF’s 2017 allegations are not relevant to any motive that she might have against defendant because the 2017 allegations were singularly made against her stepfather, not defendant.” The court held that even “though the trial court failed to ‘determine the appropriate standard of proof for the admissibility of evidence of prior false allegations of sexual assault by the complainant,’ the trial court determined that ‘either by clear or convincing evidence or preponderance of the evidence standard of proof,’ defendant failed to meet his burden.”