PEOPLE OF MI V JOANN ELLEN MORLEY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 180764
LC No. 94-000996-FC
JOANN ELLEN MORLEY,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Holbrook, Jr., P.J., and Taylor and W.J. Nykamp,* JJ
TAYLOR, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur with the majority’s finding that defendant is entitled to reversal of her convictions and a
new trial because the trial court improperly restricted her cross-examination of the complainant
regarding the contents of certain psychological reports and records. At retrial, if the complainant asserts
or refuses to waive her privilege regarding these documents, People v Stanaway, 446 Mich 643, 684;
521 NW2d 557 (1994), requires that the court suppress the complainant’s testimony.
I also concur that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing expert testimony
regarding past behavior of the complainant.
I dissent from the majority’s implicit holding that defendant is not entitled on retrial to cross
examine the complainant regarding the specific nature of the allegations defendant made to the
authorities that resulted in the complainant being placed in the Children’s Home of Detroit. The
complainant in this case was defendant’s daughter. The complainant was removed from the family
home and placed in the Children’s Home, much to the complainant’s displeasure, after defendant
reported to the authorities that she found the complainant and one of complainant’s younger brother’s
having sexual intercourse. At trial, defendant was able to establish that she had made unspecified
allegations regarding the complainant that resulted in complainant’s placement in the Children’s Home.
However, the exact nature of these allegations were not allowed into evidence even though they gave
the complainant a much stronger ulterior motive for making a false charge of a sexual nature against her
mother than some unspecified allegations. People v Hackett, 421 Mich 338, 348; 365 NW2d 120
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
(1984) (evidence of a complainant’s sexual conduct may be probative of an ulterior motive for making a
false charge and must be admitted into evidence, notwithstanding the rape-shield statute, in order to
preserve a defendant’s constitutional right of confrontation).
The exact nature of the allegations fleshes out defendant’s claim that the complainant had an
ulterior motive to fabricate the charges. The rough similarity of the complainant’s charges to those that
defendant earlier made give viability to defendant’s claim that her daughter fabricated the charges for
revenge. I would hold that defendant should be allowed to apprise the jury regarding the exact
circumstances which led to the complainant being placed in the Children’s Home at her retrial.
/s/ Clifford W. Taylor
-2
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.