Justice Facility Dogs in Michigan
Amber Depuydt-Goodlock
Michigan State Coordinator
Justice Facility Dogs US
These agencies have professional handlers working with certified facility dogs in Michigan.
Bronson Sexual Assault Services, Battle Creek (CCI)
Children’s Advocacy Center of Kent County, Grand Rapids (Paws With a Cause)
Leelanau County Prosecutor’s Office, Sutton’s Bay (CCI)
Appellate Court Decision
People of the State of Michigan v. Dakota Lee Shorter (2018)
Full text of the opinion here.
In this case, the defendant was charged with sexually assaulting the victim and the prosecution asked that a support dog accompany the victim when she testified in court. The following evidence was provided to the trial court judge.
- The victim’s roommate stated she was so upset that he could barely understand her.
- the apartment manager described the complainant’s emotional state as “absolutely hysterical to the point I couldn’t understand her.”
- The police officers, who testified, agreed that the complainant was very upset when they arrived. One officer testified that “[s]he was shaking and her breathing was to the point where almost hyperventilating.”
- The nurse that conducted the forensic sexual assault exam described the victim as “emotionally distraught and tearful throughout”.
- The prosecution responded to the defendant’s objection stating, “Judge, I think my response to that is that it will limit her emotional outbursts when she’s testifying. This is a victim who has been teary-eyed multiple times when I’ve spoken to her, without even getting into, you know, the facts of what occurred the actual testimony that she will be giving. We did a trial preparation meeting at my office last week where Preston, the dog, was present. She was less emotional with him in the room. She indicated she felt more comfortable and that is something that she wants. I think that it—it would be a benefit to both sides to have her control her emotions through the use of the support dog.”
- “The trial court then granted the prosecution’s request, concluding, “That’s sufficient for this Court in that it will limit her emotional display on the stand. I agree that that could even be
beneficial to the Defendant. And that there’s already been, sort of, a trial run with the dog and it’s been a successful one at that. So, I think that’s a sufficient basis for her to use the support
animal while testifying.” When instructing the jury at the outset of the complainant’s testimony and, again, at the end of the trial, the court instructed the jury that you must “not allow the use of a support animal to influence your decision in any way,” and that “you should not consider the witness’s testimony to be any more or less credible because of the animal’s presence.
The appellate court decided “that a fully-abled adult witness may not be accompanied by a support animal or support person while testifying” and that the error was not harmless and remanded the case back for retrial.
State’s Brief to the Michigan State Supreme Court
Amicus Brief for the Michigan State Supreme Court
The Michigan State Supreme Court denied review of the Appellate Court’s decision.
People v. Johnson (2016)
2016 WL 1576933 (2016)
Full text of the opinion here.
Michigan Court of Appeals, April 19, 2016
Nature of Case:
Jordan Johnson was convicted of six counts of sexual offenses committed over a three-year period. The victim was his niece, who was six years old at the time of trial.
Procedure in the trial court:
Prior to trial, the prosecutor filed a notice of intent to use a “support person” pursuant to Michigan Compiled Laws 600.2163a. The dog was the designated “support person.” Defense counsel did not object to this procedure. During the trial, the dog sat at the feet of the 6-year-old victim and her 10-year-old brother when they testified.
Appellate Decision:
Because no objection was raised at trial, the only issue on appeal was whether the defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel. To establish ineffective assistance, the defendant must show that (1) defense counsel’s performance was so deficient that it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and (2) there is a reasonable probability that this deficient performance prejudiced the defendant.
The use of the dog at trial was not properly based on MCL 600.2163a. That statute allows the use of a support person. A dog is not a “person.” The use of a dog nonetheless fell within the trial judge’s inherent authority to control the courtroom. Any objection to the judge’s authority would have been meritless.
The defense attorney could make a reasonable tactical decision not to object to the dog’s presence. The presence of a dog in the courtroom is not inherently prejudicial. Allowing a witness to be accompanied by a dog likewise does not violate the defendant’s right to confront witnesses. As a result, the trial judge is not required to make specific findings of necessity before allowing the use of a support animal. It is nonetheless better practice for judges to make some findings regarding their decision to allow or disallow a support animal.
The jurors are presumed to follow their instructions to decide the case on the evidence and not render a decision based on sympathy. Defense counsel acted reasonably in not requesting additional instructions.
ADI Accredited Organizations
The following organizations place facility dogs in the state of Michigan. Please visit their websites to find out more about each organization.
ADW – Assistance Dogs of the West