False Allegations and Credibility in Michigan Sexual Misconduct Cases

Michigan law does not decide in advance who is telling the truth in a sexual misconduct case. It gives the question to the jury, and it supplies rules of evidence that apply to every witness, whether called by the prosecution or the defense.^[1][2] Those rules allow any witness's credibility to be tested and limit how it may be tested, and Michigan courts have barred expert testimony that vouches for a complainant.^[3][8]

This page explains the law. It is not legal advice and is not a recommendation to rely on any defense. It does not suggest that complainants in general are untruthful or that accused people in general are guilty; the rules described here apply to every witness.

This page explains those rules, the limits the rape-shield statute places on them, and the text of Michigan's false-report statute. It gives no figures on how often reports are true or false. Michigan appellate courts have held that expert testimony of that kind improperly vouches for a complainant.^[8][9]

Who decides whether a witness is believed?

The fact-finder.^[1] The model credibility instruction, M Crim JI 3.6, carries a Use Note saying it should be given in every case. It tells jurors that they decide which witnesses to believe, that they may believe all, none, or part of any person's testimony, and that there is no fixed set of rules for judging a witness.^[2]

The instruction offers questions to think about, including whether the witness has any bias, prejudice, or personal interest in how the case is decided, whether any promises, threats, suggestions, or other influences affected the testimony, and how reasonable the testimony seems in light of all the other evidence.^[2]

It also distinguishes lying from being mistaken. When testimony conflicts, jurors are to think about whether someone is lying or is simply mistaken, because people may testify honestly but simply be wrong about what they thought they saw or remembered.^[12] A not-guilty verdict is what the instructions call for whenever jurors are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.^[13]

Two statutes apply in prosecutions under MCL 750.520b to 750.520g: the testimony of a victim need not be corroborated, and a victim need not resist the actor.^[14][15] The matching instruction on corroboration says other evidence is not necessary "if that testimony proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."^[16] See One-witness cases and corroboration.

How do the rules of evidence let credibility be tested?

Any party, including the party that called a witness, may attack the witness's credibility.^[3] A separate rule says evidence of a witness's character may be admitted under Rules 607, 608, and 609.^[17] The main provisions are these; each applies to any witness, whichever side called the witness.

Method	Rule
Character for truthfulness	By testimony about the witness's reputation for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or an opinion about that character. Evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the witness's character for truthfulness has been attacked.[18]
Specific instances of conduct	Extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove them. The court may allow them to be asked about on cross-examination if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness.[4]
Prior inconsistent statements	Extrinsic evidence of one is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny it and the adverse party an opportunity to examine the witness about it, or if justice so requires.[6]
Criminal convictions	Admissible to attack character for truthfulness only if the crime contained an element of dishonesty or false statement, or contained an element of theft, was punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, and the court determines the evidence has significant probative value on character for truthfulness.[5] Not admissible if more than ten years have passed since the conviction or release from confinement for it, whichever is later.[19]
Bias	The credibility instruction asks jurors whether a witness has any bias, prejudice, or personal interest in how the case is decided.[2] Where the evidence offered to show bias is a complainant's prior sexual conduct, the rape-shield limits below apply.[20]
The court's control	A witness may be cross-examined on any matter relevant to any issue in the case, including credibility; the court must exercise reasonable control over the examination, including to protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment.[21]

When a witness's earlier statement differs from the testimony in court, jurors are told they may consider the earlier statement to help decide how believable the testimony was; if the earlier statement was made under oath, they may also consider it as evidence of the truth of what was said.^[22]

The Court of Appeals has said that the process and protocol by which a complainant was interviewed will frequently be directly relevant to an issue in dispute.^[23] Michigan's protocol for interviewing children is described in Forensic interviews of children.

What may nobody tell the jury?

These holdings concern expert and police witnesses. Most were decided in child sexual abuse cases.

• In child sexual abuse cases, an expert may not testify that the sexual abuse occurred, may not vouch for the veracity of a victim, and may not testify whether the defendant is guilty.^[7]
• Expert witnesses may not testify that children overwhelmingly do not lie when reporting sexual abuse.^[8]
• An expert's statement that false reports are "statistically very rare," though it gave no number, was held to be the same kind of statistical vouching.^[9]
• An examining physician cannot testify that a complainant has been sexually assaulted, or has been diagnosed with sexual abuse, without physical evidence that corroborates the complainant's account.^[24]
• In People v Musser (2013) the Michigan Supreme Court held a detective who was not qualified as an expert to the same limitations, and said courts should be particularly insistent in protecting innocent defendants in child sexual abuse cases, given concerns about suggestibility and the effect an expert's testimony may have on a jury.^[25]

The same decisions say what an expert may do. In child sexual abuse cases an expert may testify about typical and relevant symptoms for the sole purpose of explaining behavior that jurors might incorrectly construe as inconsistent with that of an actual abuse victim.^[26] The Court of Appeals has described "delayed disclosure" as not immediately informing others of the abuse.^[27] When such testimony is given, jurors are told it cannot be used to show the crime was committed and is not an opinion that the complainant is telling the truth.^[28] See Expert witnesses in child sexual abuse cases and Delayed reporting.

What limits does the rape-shield law place on testing credibility?

Two provisions limit this kind of evidence. Under MCL 750.520j, in prosecutions under MCL 750.520b to 750.520g, evidence of specific instances of the victim's sexual conduct, and opinion and reputation evidence of it, is not admitted except in two categories and on findings by the judge.^[29][30] The matching rule of evidence, MRE 404(a)(2)(C), lets the defendant in a criminal-sexual-conduct case offer evidence of the alleged victim's past sexual conduct with the defendant and of specific instances of sexual activity showing the source or origin of semen, pregnancy, or disease.^[31]

The Michigan Supreme Court addressed the tension with the right of confrontation in People v Hackett. It recognized that "in certain limited situations" admission of such evidence may be required to preserve that right, and gave examples: evidence of prior sexual conduct offered for the narrow purpose of showing the complaining witness's bias; in certain circumstances, evidence probative of an ulterior motive for making a false charge; and a showing that the complainant has made false accusations of rape in the past.^[20]

The same decision sets limits. The trial court should always favor exclusion of evidence of a complainant's sexual conduct where exclusion would not unconstitutionally abridge the right to confrontation; at the hearing it must restrict cross-examination to prevent questions that would harass, annoy, or humiliate sexual assault victims and guard against mere fishing expeditions; and it should rule against admitting evidence of prior sexual conduct with third persons unless that ruling would unduly infringe on the right to confrontation.^[32]

For a claimed prior false accusation, the benchbook states that such testimony does not implicate the rape-shield statute, citing People v Williams (Court of Appeals, 1991) and the Michigan Supreme Court's order in People v Jackson (2007).^[10] The cases set this procedure:

1. The defendant makes an offer of proof about the proposed evidence and demonstrates its relevance to the purpose for which it is offered.^[33]
2. The trial court must explicitly state whether the offer of proof was sufficient; once a sufficient offer of proof is made, the in camera evidentiary hearing "is not optional" (People v Butler, Michigan Supreme Court, 2024).^[10][34]
3. For the offer of proof to be sufficient, there must be a showing of at least some apparently credible and potentially admissible evidence that the prior allegation was false.^[10]
4. The court must also, if necessary, make a preliminary determination whether, and to what extent, the evidence is otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence.^[10]

That showing concerns falsity; an allegation that was not charged or not proved is not described in these sources as a false one. In Butler the Court sent the case back for the trial court to determine the appropriate standard of proof for admitting such evidence, so that standard is not settled by the sources read for this guide.^[10] The full statute is explained in Michigan's rape-shield law.

Records are subject to their own threshold. A generalized assertion that counseling records may contain evidence useful for impeachment on cross-examination does not justify review of them.^[35] See Counseling and medical records in CSC cases.

What does Michigan's false-report statute say?

MCL 750.411a(1) reads: "Except as otherwise provided in subsections (2) and (3), a person who intentionally makes a false report of the commission of a crime, or intentionally causes a false report of the commission of a crime to be made, to a peace officer, police agency of this state or of a local unit of government, 9-1-1 operator, or any other governmental employee or contractor or employee of a contractor who is authorized to receive reports of a crime, knowing the report is false, is guilty of a crime as follows:"^[11]

False report of	Classification and maximum
A misdemeanor	Misdemeanor; imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $500, or both.[11]
A felony	Felony; imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $2,000, or both.[11]

Higher maximums apply where the false report results in a response to address the reported crime and a person is harmed "as a proximate result of lawful conduct arising out of that response": not more than 5 years or $20,000 for physical injury, not more than 10 years or $25,000 for serious impairment of a body function, and not more than 15 years or a fine of $25,000 to $50,000 where a person is killed.^[11]

The words that define the offense are "intentionally" and "knowing the report is false."^[11] The subsection does not refer to how a case based on the report ended; a dismissal or an acquittal is not one of its elements.^[11] As with any crime, the prosecutor would have to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt.^[13] Under MCL 764.1, a warrant or summons for other than a minor offense is not issued unless a written authorization is filed, signed by the prosecuting attorney except as otherwise provided in that act.^[36]

Civil remedies are a separate subject; see Civil lawsuits for sexual assault.

What people get wrong

"An acquittal proves the accuser lied." An acquittal reflects the burden of proof.^[13] The jury instruction itself recognizes that witnesses can be honestly mistaken.^[12]

"A conviction needs more than one person's word." The statute says the testimony of a victim need not be corroborated in prosecutions under MCL 750.520b to 750.520g; the jury must still be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.^[14][16]

"If the complainant recants, the case is over." The Court of Appeals has said a crime victim may not determine whether a prosecution goes forward, and in People v Morrow it said it is the province of the jury to determine which of two accounts is the truth.^[37][38]

"An expert can settle it." Michigan courts have held that an expert may not testify that abuse occurred, vouch for a complainant's veracity, or say that false reports are statistically very rare.^[7][8][9] How these rules play out in the courtroom is described in What happens at a CSC trial, and the defenses are summarized in Defenses to sex crime charges.