PEOPLE OF MI V JASON ALLEN BOISMIER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
December 28, 2010
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 291642
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 2008-012562-01
JASON ALLEN BOISMIER,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: SHAPIRO, P.J., and SAAD and SERVITTO, JJ.
Servitto, J. (concurring).
Although I concur in the result reached by the majority, I write separately to address my
conclusion that the prosecutor’s specific question to defendant as to whether he told his
neighbor, David Gasidlo, that he had consensual sex with the complainant was improper. The
prosecution initially moved to endorse David Gasidlo as a late witness when, according to the
prosecutor, Gasidlo’s daughter informed the prosecutor that defendant had told Gasidlo he had
consensual sex with the complainant. After Gasidlo denied that defendant made such a
statement to him, the prosecution withdrew its motion to include Gasidlo as a witness. In doing
so, the prosecution implicitly acknowledged that Gasidlo’s testimony would be that defendant
made no admission to him. And, the defense being that defendant had no sexual contact with the
complainant whatsoever, the prosecution was well aware that defendant’s response to the
question of whether he made any admission to Gasidlo would be “no.” The prosecution thus had
no reasonable or good faith basis to ask defendant if he had told Gasidlo he had consensual sex
with the complainant, and appears to have asked the question simply to inject an improper
suggestion that she had evidence of such an admission into the proceedings when she clearly did
not. Had the prosecution any doubt as to Gasidlo’s testimony, it could very well have called
Gasidlo as a witness or carefully questioned Gasidlo’s testifying daughter (who denies making
such a statement to the prosecutor) on the issue.
That being said, I agree that the question did not deny defendant a fair and impartial trial.
No one dwelled on the single question and, as indicated by the majority, both the trial court and
defense counsel addressed the issue, thus eliminating any potential prejudice to defendant. I
therefore agree that defendant was not entitled to a new trial.
/s/ Deborah A. Servitto
-1-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.