PEOPLE OF MI V MICHAEL PATRICK IVERS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 195321
Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 94-068070-FC
MICHAEL PATRICK IVERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Michael J. Kelly, P.J., and Reilly and Jansen, JJ.
JANSEN, J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Although I agree that the proffered testimony did not fall within the
parameters of the rape-shield statute, MCL 750.520j; MSA 28.788(10), I find that the proffered
testimony was not relevant. Therefore, I would find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
prohibiting testimony concerning statements made by the complainant to one of her friends on the night
of the alleged rape.
As noted by the majority, the witness would have testified that the complainant told her that the
complainant had discussed birth control with her mother, that she was “ready to have sex,” and that the
complainant wanted the witness to help her “find a guy.” MRE 401 defines relevant evidence as
“evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”
Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. MRE 402. The issue in this case was whether the
complainant actually consented to having sexual intercourse with the defendant. Defendant claimed that
the complainant consented to having sex with him, while the complainant claimed that she did not
consent and was raped.
I find these statements to be irrelevant in this case because they do not relate to whether the
complainant consented to having sexual intercourse with this defendant during the night in question.
Further, as noted by the prosecutor, the statements were not even related to any time, place, or person.
How, then, can the statements be probative or material of the issue of the complainant’s consent or lack
thereof? See People v Mills, 450 Mich 61-67-68; 537 NW2d 909 (1995) (in order to determine
-1
whether evidence is relevant, the court must first determine the materiality of the evidence and the
probative force of the evidence). Such generalized and indefinite statements do not prove the
complainant’s state of mind with respect to consent, especially regarding the night of the alleged rape
with this defendant. Therefore, the statements are not material because they were not related to any fact
of consequence to the case, and they are not probative because the statements do not make a fact of
consequence more or less probable than it would be without the evidence. See id.
Accordingly, there is no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court because the trial court
properly ruled that the proffered testimony was irrelevant.
With respect to the remaining issues raised by defendant, I would find no error and would affirm
defendant’s conviction and sentence.
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-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.
