O People of Michigan v. Karl Derell Butler ( 2024 )

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED
August 15, 2024
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v No. 359849
Kalamazoo Circuit Court
KARL DERELL BUTLER, LC No. 2019-001056-FC
Defendant-Appellee.
ON REMAND
Before: GADOLA, C.J., and CAVANAGH and K. F. KELLY, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
This case returns to us after a remand to the trial court to conduct an in camera evidentiary
hearing consistent with the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in People v Butler, 513 Mich 24;
6 NW3d 54 (2024). We dismiss the case as moot.
A full recitation of the facts and procedural history before the Supreme Court’s remand can
be found in this Court’s prior opinion. See People v Butler, unpublished per curiam opinion of the
Court of Appeals, issued September 22, 2022 (Docket Nos. 359847, 359848 & 359849), p 2-3.
Defendant and two other individuals were charged with sexually assaulting the complainant and
sought to introduce evidence of the complainant’s past sexual history. Without holding an in
camera evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that the offer of proof was sufficient and deferred
ruling on the admissibility of the evidence.
The prosecutor appealed, and this Court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion
when it concluded defendant’s offer of proof was sufficient. Butler, unpub op at 3-7. Defendant
sought leave to appeal and, in lieu of granting leave, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated our
opinion and remanded the case. Butler, 513 Mich at 29-34. The Supreme Court stated that the
trial court implicitly found that defendant’s offer of proof was sufficient to warrant an in camera
evidentiary hearing and did not err to the extent that it did so. Butler, 513 Mich at 31. For that
reason, the Supreme Court determined that we erred when determining that the offer of proof was
-1-
not itself sufficient. Id. The Court also concluded, however, that the trial court erred by granting
the motion to admit the evidence without holding an in camera evidentiary hearing and that this
Court erred by analyzing the ultimate question of admissibility without first requiring the trial
court to hold the hearing. Id.
Consistent with the Supreme Court’s directive, this Court remanded the case to the trial
court for an in camera evidentiary hearing under People v Hackett, 421 Mich 338; 365 NW2d 120(1984).1 People v Butler, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered April 29, 2024
(Docket No. 359849). Ultimately, the prosecutor moved to dismiss the charges without prejudice
before the hearing took place, and the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case without
prejudice on July 10, 2024. For that reason, the trial court did not hold the evidentiary hearing,
and this Court recognized that the interlocutory remand had concluded on July 16, 2024.
Because the prosecutor’s motion for dismissal was not within the scope of the interlocutory
appeal, the trial court had jurisdiction to consider and grant that motion. See People v Scott, ___
Mich ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2024) (Docket No. 164790), slip op at 16-17. Moreover, the trial
court’s decision to grant the motion obviated the need for an evidentiary hearing. Because this
Court no longer has the ability to grant the relief requested by the prosecutor on appeal, we dismiss
this appeal as moot. See People v Rutherford, 208 Mich App 198, 204; 526 NW2d 620 (1994).
Dismissed as moot.
/s/ Michael F. Gadola
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
1
In addition to remanding the case, this Court also disconsolidated the cases because defendant
Butler was the only party that sought leave to appeal with the Supreme Court. People v Butler,
unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered April 29, 2024 (Docket No. 359849).
-2-